disciplinary handbook: volume v - Supreme Court - State of Ohio

Wineman, Disciplinary Counsel v.121 Ohio St.3d 614, 2009-Ohio-2005. Decided 5/6/2009.Case Summaries- 357Respondent attempted to represent clients in and out of the courtroom while intoxicated. As to Count I,when respondent arrived on August 3, 2006 at the courthouse where he was scheduled to appear forclients in two different proceedings, a sheriff‘s deputy suspected from his appearance and breath hewas intoxicated. Opposing counsel in one of the same cases reached the same conclusion when tryingto discuss the case. The lawyer reported his suspicions to the magistrate. The magistrate confirmed thelawyer‘s impressions with the deputy sheriff and reported respondent‘s condition to the common pleascourt judge. The judge brought respondent into chambers and confronted him. The judge observed thesigns of intoxication, including slurred speech and the odor of alcohol and forbade him to participate inthe two hearings that day. Respondent agreed to pay the costs of continuances. Respondentacknowledged his intoxicated state, apologized, and conceded he needed help. Board adopted thepanel‘s findings of violations of DR 1-102(A)(5) and DR 1-102(A)(6). As to Count II, Michael Sandierhired respondent in April 2007 to defend him in a criminal charge in municipal court. When Sandifermet his at his office that month to discuss the case, Sandifer left abruptly because respondent wasintoxicated. Also, on May 9, 2007, respondent appeared under the influence of alcohol at one ofSandifer‘s pretrial hearings. He entered the courtroom, walked by Sandifer without acknowledging hispresence, and entered the judge‘s chambers. Both the judge and the assistant law director prosecuting thecase detected the odor of alcohol. The judge warned him he would declare a mistrial and findrespondent in contempt if he appeared intoxicated at trial. The day of the trial, during lunch break,Sandifer noticed respondent‘s eyes were bloodshot and his speech was slurred and that he smelled ofalcohol. Sandifer requested that respondent ask certain questions of witnesses, but respondent wasunresponsive and repeatedly asked Sandifer to remind him of the facts in the case. Sandifer fearedrespondent was under the influence of alcohol. Sandifer was found guilty by a jury. Sandiferdischarged respondent in June 2007 and asked for a refund. Sandifer hired new counsel and thejudge vacated the conviction, in part because of the possible intoxication of respondent. Sandifer wasconvicted of a lesser crime. After reviewing relator‘s draft complaint, respondent refunded Sandifer‘s$750. Board adopted panel‘s findings of violations of Prof.Cond.Rules 1.1, 8.4(d), 8.4(h). There are noaggravating factors. In mitigation, there is no prior discipline; his conduct was not motivated by selfinterestor dishonesty; he cooperated fully; and offered persuasive evidence of professional competence;good character, and reputation; and met the requirements for alcohol as a mitigating factor. BCGDProc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(a), (b), (d), (e), (g)(i) through (iv). He originally entered an OLAP contract on June9, 2007. He relapsed on July 4, 2007 but remained sober thereafter. Nevertheless, his OLAP contractwas terminated in February 2008 for noncompliance because he did not enter an inpatient treatmentfacility. In May 2008, he signed another OLAP contract. Board adopted the panel‘s recommendedsanction of suspension for 24 months with conditions that he comply with OLAP contract, includingany inpatient or outpatient treatment program determined by OLAP, that he complete a two- yearprobation including quarterly reports to a monitoring attorney; and that he commit no other misconduct.The court accepted the findings of violations and the recommended sanction and so ordered. Citation toScurry (2007).Rules Violated: Prof.Cond.Rules 1.1, 8.4(d), 8.4(h); DR 1-102(A)(5), 1-102(A)(6)Aggravation: NONEMitigation: (a), (b), (d), (e), (g)Prior Discipline: NO Procedure/ Process Issues: NO Criminal Conduct: NOPublic Official: NO Sanction: Two-year suspension