Opinion
No. 89-2214
Submitted March 28, 1990 —
Decided June 27, 1990.
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Suspended six-month suspension — Conviction for assault and obstructing official business.
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 89-10.
By a complaint filed on April 21, 1989, relator, Office of Disciplinary Counsel, charged that respondent, Kenneth Bruce Baker, had violated, inter alia, DR 1-102(A)(6) (engaging in conduct that adversely reflects on an attorney's fitness to practice law). The matter was heard by a panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court on September 15, 1989. Prior to the hearing, respondent stipulated to having violated DR 1-102(A)(6) and also to the events underlying the misconduct.
According to the stipulations, respondent attended a concert on March 14, 1988 at the Richfield Coliseum during which he was offered a packet that he believed to contain illegal drugs. Respondent refused the packet, but he was later offered the packet again outside a restroom. This time, he accepted the packet. This exchange was observed by an undercover police officer who followed respondent into the restroom. The officer attempted to apprehend respondent, but respondent resisted, purportedly because he did not know the officer's identity. Respondent then apparently flushed the packet and its contents down the commode.
Respondent was later indicted and charged with violations of R.C. 2921.12 (tampering with evidence), 2921.33 (resisting arrest), and 2903.13(A) (assault). In June 1988, he pleaded guilty to assault and the reduced charge of obstructing official business, a violation of R.C. 2921.31. He was found guilty and fined $1,750. Respondent was also sentenced to ninety days in jail, but his sentence was suspended and he was placed on unsupervised probation for one year.
At the hearing, respondent testified that he did not ingest the drugs offered him on the night in question and that he has not taken drugs since that night. Indeed, no evidence established that respondent has ever taken drugs unlawfully. As for his accepting the packet offered to him, respondent admitted that he had been drinking alcohol during the concert, but he could not otherwise explain why he accepted the packet, particularly since it was against his better judgment.
Based on the foregoing, the panel found that respondent had violated DR 1-102(A)(6). Before making its recommendation, the panel considered eight letters that favorably described respondent's character and professional competence, several of which indicated the authors' belief that the events of March 14, 1988 would never be repeated. The panel also considered respondent's expressed remorse and his full cooperation in relator's investigation. The panel then recommended that the sanction suggested by the parties, a six-month suspension from the practice of law, be stayed pending an eighteen-month monitored probation period that included random and unannounced drug testing at relator's expense. The board adopted the panel's findings, but agreed only with the panel's recommendation that a six-month suspension be imposed.
J. Warren Bettis, disciplinary counsel, and Karen B. Hull, for relator.
Roger M. Synenberg, for respondent.
Having thoroughly reviewed this record, we agree that respondent violated DR 1-102(A)(6). However, in light of the mitigating evidence, we find the sanction recommended by the panel to be the more appropriate penalty in this case. Therefore, we order that respondent be suspended from the practice of law in Ohio for six months, but we suspend this penalty on the condition that he satisfactorily complete an eighteen-month monitored probation period. During this period, respondent shall be subject to random and unannounced drug testing. This testing shall be undertaken at respondent's expense. Costs taxed to respondent.
Judgment accordingly.
MOYER, C.J., SWEENEY, HOLMES, DOUGLAS, WRIGHT, H. BROWN and RESNICK, JJ., concur.