Summary
In Disciplinary Counsel v. Randall (1989), 43 Ohio St.3d 149, 539 N.E.2d 160, a case involving a conviction of an attorney for gross sexual imposition, we found that indefinite suspension was an appropriate sanction.
Summary of this case from Disciplinary Counsel v. PansieraOpinion
No. 89-50
Submitted April 5, 1989 —
Decided June 7, 1989.
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Indefinite suspension — Convictions of gross sexual imposition and indecent exposure.
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 88-30.
In October 1986, Timothy E. Randall, respondent, entered a plea of guilty in the Court of Common Pleas of Cuyahoga County to a violation of R.C. 2907.05, gross sexual imposition, and in January 1987, pleaded guilty in the Bedford Municipal Court to a violation of R.C. 2907.09, indecent exposure. On April 8, 1987, we suspended respondent from the practice of law for an indefinite period, and referred the matter to relator, Disciplinary Counsel, for investigation and commencement of disciplinary proceedings.
Relator subsequently filed a complaint alleging violation of DR 1-102(A)(3) (engaging in conduct involving moral turpitude), DR 1-102(A)(4) (engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation), DR 1-102(A)(5) (engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice), and DR 1-102(A)(6) (engaging in other conduct that adversely reflects on fitness to practice law). On October 20, 1988, relator and respondent filed stipulations in which respondent admitted the allegations set forth in the complaint, and admitted that his misconduct constituted violations of the aforementioned Disciplinary Rules. A sanction of an indefinite suspension was jointly recommended.
Hearing before a panel of the board was waived. The panel then considered the stipulations and other documents and recommended that respondent be indefinitely suspended from the practice of law. The board concurred in the panel's recommendation that respondent be indefinitely suspended, and that consideration be given to the respondent's mental condition at the time of reinstatement. The board further recommended that costs be taxed to respondent.
J. Warren Bettis, disciplinary counsel, and Carl J. Corletzi, for relator.
Robert O. Carson, for respondent.
We concur in the recommendation of the board. Respondent is hereby ordered indefinitely suspended from the practice of law in Ohio. Prior to reinstatement, consideration is to be given to the respondent's mental condition. Costs taxed to respondent.
Judgment accordingly.
MOYER, C.J., SWEENEY, HOLMES, DOUGLAS, WRIGHT, H. BROWN and RESNICK, JJ., concur.