Opinion
No. 83-43
Decided July 11, 1984.
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Indefinite suspension — Drug dependency.
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Bar.
This matter came on for hearing in Dayton on August 12, 1983 before a hearing panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline upon the amended complaint and certificate of the relator, Dayton Bar Association, as well as the testimony, evidence and stipulations submitted by the parties. The answer of the respondent, Donald C. LaVeris, was withdrawn on the day of the hearing.
The amended complaint sets forth fifteen separate instances of alleged misconduct on the part of respondent in that he violated the following rules: DR 1-102(A)(4) and (6), DR 2-110(A)(3), DR 6-101(A)(1) and (3), and Gov. Bar R.V. Rather than recite each of the alleged violations and the facts surrounding the same, suffice it to say that each of the allegations contained in the amended complaint, with the exception of one which was withdrawn, were admitted to be true by the respondent, and further that the misconduct in each instance was a direct result of the respondent's admitted drug dependency.
In his testimony, respondent related that he had initially been introduced to the use of drugs while still in high school. Respondent continued to experiment and use drugs through college and law school to the point that he became dependent on them. By the time of the alleged misconduct set forth in the amended complaint, respondent admitted having a $200 to $300 a day heroin habit, which he financed through his high volume domestic relations practice. As a result of numerous traffic violations that respondent experienced arising out of his drug problem, respondent resolved to seek assistance for his drug dependency.
The stipulations of the parties indicate that respondent has successfully completed both the Samaritan Hall treatment program in Dayton, as well as the "ARCH" drug treatment halfway house in Omaha, Nebraska. At the time of the hearing the respondent was continuing in treatment, therapy and counselling, on a daily basis in Omaha through the ARCH program, Alcoholics Anonymous, and Narcotics Anonymous.
Respondent has agreed to enter into a program of restitution in order to reimburse those former clients named in the amended complaint to the extent of their damages incurred as a result of his misconduct, and further to reimburse the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline and the Office of Disciplinary Counsel of the Supreme Court of Ohio, for counsel fees expended and court costs incurred in these disciplinary proceedings.
Various witnesses testified to the effect that the respondent has vastly improved from the time he entered into the drug treatment programs, and that the prognosis for respondent is good, provided that he continues his cooperation and lifetime commitment to these drug rehabilitation programs.
The board of commissioners, adopting the findings of fact and conclusions of law of the panel, found that respondent committed every act complained of in the amended complaint and that he violated each of the specific Disciplinary Rules set forth therein. The board also concluded that each of the acts of misconduct committed by the respondent was the direct result of respondent's drug dependency. Therefore, upon the urging of the parties, the board recommended the respondent be indefinitely suspended from the practice of law.
Mr. Lawrence W. Henke III, for relator.
Messrs. Stewart, Flanagan, Hoffman Swaim, and Mr. Louis I. Hoffman, for respondent.
This court has carefully reviewed the record pertaining to the case herein and concurs in the board's findings of fact pursuant to the matter.
As with the numerous cases of alcoholism in the Bar, but for respondent's drug addiction, all indications are that he was a capable attorney. The respondent has undergone a remarkable rehabilitation in combating his drug problem, and it is hoped that with continued rehabilitation and treatment, he may regain the right to practice law in the state of Ohio.
Therefore, it is the judgment of this court that respondent be indefinitely suspended from the practice of law.
Judgment accordingly.
CELEBREZZE, C.J., W. BROWN, SWEENEY, LOCHER, HOLMES, C. BROWN and J.P. CELEBREZZE, JJ., concur.