Opinion
No. 92-2529
Submitted February 2, 1993 —
Decided June 16, 1993.
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 92-23.
In a complaint filed April 22, 1992, respondent, John A. Casalinuovo of Akron, Ohio, Attorney Registration No. 0008530, was charged with misconduct in violation of DR 1-102(A)(3) (engaging in illegal conduct involving moral turpitude) and 1-102(A)(6) (conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law).
Stipulations of the parties and testimony of respondent and his wife were presented on November 20, 1992 at a hearing before a panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court (the "board").
The panel found that respondent had been indicted for violation of R.C. 2925.11, drug abuse, a felony of the fourth degree, and that he entered a plea of no contest on March 22, 1991 and was found guilty by the Court of Common Pleas of Summit County. The court considered respondent eligible for treatment in lieu of conviction and stayed the criminal proceedings. The court further ordered respondent to complete a period of rehabilitation, not to exceed three years, with conditions, upon respondent's representation that he had begun a drug abuse rehabilitation program at the Glenbeigh Hospital Recovery Center.
After completion of the Glenbeigh program, respondent received individual psychotherapy from James W. Siddall, a clinical psychologist, and continued to attend AA meetings. On April 15, 1992, relator's treatment in lieu of conviction program was terminated and his indictment was dismissed by the court. Respondent has had no other disciplinary violations, and there is no evidence of any complaints from clients or that his drug use affected his clients or legal practice.
The parties' stipulations contained a joint recommendation that respondent be suspended from the practice of law in the state of Ohio for two years with the entire suspension being stayed and that respondent be placed on probation for two years. The panel accepted the recommendation on condition that throughout the probationary period (1) respondent be subject to random urine analysis and testing for substance and alcohol abuse to be monitored by the Akron Bar Association at respondent's cost; (2) that respondent continue to attend weekly AA meetings; and (3) that he continue to counsel with Dr. Siddall on at least a quarterly basis. Respondent's violation of any of these conditions would automatically result in the imposition of the two-year term of suspension. The board adopted the findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendation of the panel.
J. Warren Bettis, Disciplinary Counsel, and Alvin E. Mathews, Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator.
Peter T. Cahoon, for respondent.
Based upon our review of the stipulations and the record, we agree with the findings of fact and conclusions of the board. However, we add to the board's recommendation an additional condition to probation. Respondent is suspended from the practice of law in Ohio for two years with the entire suspension stayed and respondent placed on probation for a period of two years on condition that throughout the probationary period, he (1) remain drug-free and alcohol free; (2) be subject to random urine analysis and testing for substance and alcohol abuse, to be monitored by the Akron Bar Association, at respondent's cost; (3) continue to counsel with Dr. Siddall on at least a quarterly basis; and (4) continue to attend weekly AA meetings. If respondent violates any of these conditions, the two-year term of suspension will be automatically imposed.
Costs taxed to respondent.
Judgment accordingly.
MOYER, C.J., A.W. SWEENEY, DOUGLAS, WRIGHT, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY and PFEIFER, JJ., concur.