Opinion
D.D. No. 86-10
Decided December 24, 1986.
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — One-year suspension — Disruption of criminal proceeding — Probation granted pursuant to Gov. Bar R. V(12), when.
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Bar.
Relator, Office of Disciplinary Counsel, charged respondent, George W. Pridemore, with three counts of misconduct, alleging violation of the Disciplinary Rules.
As to Count I, the circumstances of this case are not disputed. Respondent, without having a matter pending before the court, disrupted a criminal proceeding in the Court of Common Pleas of Warren County on December 15, 1983. Respondent's bizarre behavior included telling the court about his health, an alleged wiretap of his telephone, and about his meetings with a Pulitzer prize winner, a political cartoonist, and a close relative of the chief writer of T.V. Guide magazine.
Additionally, respondent has had difficulties with several physicians. In one instance he demanded the release of his medical records concerning an evaluation done for the Ohio Bureau of Vocational Rehabilitation. In other instances he has threatened to sue doctors for infliction of emotional distress and demanded in writing to the State Medical Board that their medical licenses be revoked for the unauthorized practice of medicine relative to his alleged unsupervised prescription drug withdrawal. Respondent's actions were alleged to be in violation of DR 1-102(A)(5), which prohibits conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice, and DR 1-102(A)(6), which prohibits conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law. The board of commissioners found respondent in violation of these Disciplinary Rules and recommended an indefinite suspension. The remaining counts were dismissed for lack of evidence.
Angelo J. Gagliardo, disciplinary counsel, and Karen B. Hull, for relator.
Staton Hedges and John C. Hedges, Jr., for respondent.
Our concern in this matter is with the respondent's alleged violations of DR 1-102(A)(5) and 1-102(A)(6).
A review of the record elicits a number of evidentiary considerations. On the one hand, it is undisputed respondent has received medical care and psychological counseling and has been hospitalized for psychiatric care on five separate occasions since 1978. Similarly, respondent's bizarre behavior in the courtroom on December 15, 1983 is undisputed. On the other hand there is no evidence in the record that respondent's difficulties have ever prejudiced the cause of a client or impaired his effective representation of a client. An affidavit submitted by Judge William W. Young, the same judge interrupted by respondent, indicates that since the December 15, 1983 incident, respondent has effectively represented individuals in two separate criminal matters before him. Moreover, the board referred respondent to Dr. Ronald Litvak for independent psychiatric evaluation. After evaluation of respondent's files and two interviews with respondent, Dr. Litvak concluded as follows:
"Thus, it is concluded that Mr. Pridemore's atypical depression does not now preclude his practicing law. Even should there be exacerbations of his illness in the future, it is possible that those treating him may minimize his symptoms such that they do not appreciably interfere with his practicing as an attorney, or, if his symptoms should worsen to that extent, help limit the interference in his ability to practice law to only a relatively brief period of time."
This court has previously recognized that "* * * while the board may properly consider respondent's mental illness at the time of the alleged misconduct as a mitigating factor in determining what sanction should be imposed, the mental illness provisions of Gov. Bar R. V(10) are not intended to be used by a respondent in a disciplinary action to avoid suspension on that basis." Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Fettner (1983), 8 Ohio St.3d 17, 18. Former Gov. Bar R. V(10) is analogous to the present Gov. Bar R. V(12) effective October 1, 1986 and applicable to all pending cases.
Based particularly upon Dr. Litvak's conclusions, and mindful of respondent's effective representation of clients to the extent indicated in the record before us, we hold as follows: respondent shall be given a one-year suspension from the practice of law for his activities in violation of DR 1-102(A)(5) and 1-102(A)(6). However, in consideration of the mitigating factors presented, such sanction shall be suspended contingent upon probation. The terms of this probation are to be determined by the Disciplinary Counsel in consultation with respondent and his doctors. Moreover, the Office of Disciplinary Counsel shall establish procedures to monitor respondent's continued medical treatments and to insure that respondent's condition is sufficiently stable to allow him to effectively practice law.
It is our hope that our actions in the matter may provide the basis for an alternative to traditional sanctions so long as respondent maintains his ability to effectively practice law.
Judgment accordingly.
CELEBREZZE, C.J., SWEENEY, LOCHER, HOLMES, C. BROWN, DOUGLAS and WRIGHT, JJ., concur.