From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Disciplinary Counsel v. Colburn

Supreme Court of Ohio
May 10, 1989
42 Ohio St. 3d 173 (Ohio 1989)

Opinion

No. D.D. 88-14

Submitted March 7, 1989 —

Decided May 10, 1989.

Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Indefinite suspension — Illegal conduct involving moral turpitude — Conviction of felonious assault and firearm specification.

ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 2-85-B.

On January 18, 1985, relator, Disciplinary Counsel, filed a complaint against respondent, Joseph L. Colburn, Jr., alleging one count of misconduct. Respondent was charged with violating DR 1-102(A)(3) (engaging in illegal conduct involving moral turpitude) and DR 1-102(A)(6) (engaging in other conduct that adversely reflects on one's fitness to practice law). The matter was heard on June 7, 1988 by a panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court.

The complaint was filed as a result of the respondent's criminal conviction in the case of State v. Colburn, Scioto C.P. No. CR-84-123, unreported.

On November 30, 1984, respondent was found guilty of felonious assault and a firearm specification, R.C. 2903.11(A)(2) and 2941.141. On December 11, 1984, respondent was sentenced on the felonious assault charge, an aggravated felony of the second degree, to a term of imprisonment of not less than three nor more than fifteen years. Pursuant to R.C. 2929.71, he was also sentenced to a term of three years on the firearm specification to be served consecutively with and prior to the sentence on the felonious assault conviction. Respondent is presently incarcerated in the Chillicothe Correctional Institute.

Briefly stated, the facts that led to the conviction are as follows. Respondent became acquainted with Avanelle Albrecht, now Avanelle Colburn, on Easter Sunday, 1983. On that date, Mrs. Albrecht approached respondent to ask if respondent would represent her in a divorce case. Apparently, the respondent never did represent Mrs. Albrecht in that divorce action. However, the respondent's and the former Mrs. Albrecht's relationship grew and they were subsequently married.

From approximately one week after Easter Sunday, 1983 until April 23, 1984, respondent and his wife's ex-husband, William Albrecht, were on less than friendly terms. During this period, Mr. Albrecht and respondent had numerous encounters in which Mr. Albrecht allegedly threatened and used physical force against respondent.

On April 23, the final confrontation between the two men took place. The two were in separate cars stopped at an intersection when Mr. Albrecht got out of his car and approached the respondent's car. The respondent testified that he felt threatened. As Mr. Albrecht was walking toward respondent's car, respondent cracked his car door and shot Mr. Albrecht in the abdomen. As a result of his wound, Mr. Albrecht had to spend four days in the hospital. Respondent was then charged with and convicted of the shooting. All appeals of that conviction were exhausted resulting in no change in the original sentence.

On December 26, 1984, this court ordered the respondent suspended from the practice of law in Ohio for an indefinite period pursuant to then Gov. Bar R. V(8)(a)(iii).

The hearing panel concluded that respondent had violated the Disciplinary Rules charged and recommended an indefinite suspension, and also that respondent be allowed credit for two years of the period of suspension imposed under former Gov. Bar R. V(8)(a)(iii), to be applied as of the date of respondent's release from incarceration. The board concurred in the panel's findings and recommendation, and further recommended that respondent pay the costs of the proceedings.

J. Warren Bettis, disciplinary counsel, and Carl J. Corletzi, for relator.

Joseph L. Colburn, Jr., pro se.


We concur with the board's findings and recommendation. Accordingly, respondent is hereby indefinitely suspended from the practice of law in Ohio. He is to be given credit for two years of the period of suspension to be applied as of the date of his release from incarceration. Costs taxed to respondent.

Judgment accordingly.

MOYER, C.J., SWEENEY, HOLMES, DOUGLAS, WRIGHT, H. BROWN and RESNICK, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Disciplinary Counsel v. Colburn

Supreme Court of Ohio
May 10, 1989
42 Ohio St. 3d 173 (Ohio 1989)
Case details for

Disciplinary Counsel v. Colburn

Case Details

Full title:OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. COLBURN

Court:Supreme Court of Ohio

Date published: May 10, 1989

Citations

42 Ohio St. 3d 173 (Ohio 1989)
538 N.E.2d 110

Citing Cases

Ohio State Bar Ass'n v. Mason

{¶ 30} We recognize that there are other cases involving attorneys convicted of felonious assault or…

In re Application of Corrigan

Disciplinary Counsel v. Leeth (1989), 42 Ohio St.3d 97, 537 N.E.2d 223 (felony conviction of theft by…