Summary
In Disciplinary Counsel v. Wanner, 15 Ohio St.3d 319, 473 N.E.2d 829 (1984), an attorney had been convicted of one third-degree felony count of sexual battery.
Summary of this case from Disciplinary Counsel v. PolizziOpinion
No. 84-30
Decided December 31, 1984.
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Indefinite suspension — Illegal conduct involving moral turpitude — Conduct prejudicial to administration of justice.
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Bar.
On November 23, 1983, the respondent, Anthony G. Wanner, was indefinitely suspended from the practice of law in Ohio pursuant to Gov. Bar R. V(8)(a)(iii), as a result of his conviction on a plea of guilty to a violation of R.C. 2907.03 (sexual battery), which is a third-degree felony.
Relator, the Office of Disciplinary Counsel, filed a complaint before the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline charging respondent with misconduct. The evidence, including an agreed stipulation of fact, which was submitted to the board indicated that respondent was employed by the Geauga County Juvenile Court in March 1983 as a "parent" in a girls' group home. On two separate occasions while so employed, respondent engaged in sexual intercourse and sexual conduct involving two seventeen-year-old girls who were then under his supervisory and disciplinary authority. The respondent testified that prior to his conviction he had "somewhat of a drinking problem," but that since the incidents in question he had not had anything to drink with the exception of one beer on one occasion. The respondent also indicated that he saw a therapist under the terms of his probation.
The board found respondent to have violated the following Disciplinary Rules: DR 1-102(A)(3) (engaging in illegal conduct involving moral turpitude); DR 1-102(A)(5) (engaging in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice); and DR 1-102(A)(6) (engaging in conduct that adversely reflects upon respondent's fitness to practice law). The board recommended an indefinite suspension.
Mr. Angelo J. Gagliardo, disciplinary counsel, and Mr. Mark H. Aultman, for relator.
Mr. Robert R. Wantz, for respondent.
After a careful review of the record, this court finds that respondent violated DR 1-102(A)(3), (5) and (6) of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
The record reveals that seven attorneys who were familiar with the respondent testified or wrote letters to the effect that the respondent was a competent, conscientious and ethical attorney. All of these attorneys firmly recommended against the respondent's permanent disbarment. In light of the foregoing, and in view of respondent's cooperation in the proceedings below and his apparent desire to effectively deal with and resolve his problems, we agree that permanent disbarment is not warranted in this case.
We note, however, that while respondent's misconduct did not occur as a part or result of his practice of law, his illegal actions took place while he was an employee of the Geauga County Juvenile Court, charged with the supervision and custody of juvenile females under the aegis of the court. That respondent failed miserably in his capacity as role model for the girls placed in his care is beyond cavil.
Accordingly, we adopt the recommendation of the board of commissioners, and respondent is hereby indefinitely suspended from the practice of law.
Judgment accordingly.
CELEBREZZE, C.J., W. BROWN, SWEENEY, LOCHER, HOLMES, C. BROWN and J.P. CELEBREZZE, JJ., concur.