Opinion
No. D.D. 83-4
Submitted September 25, 1990 —
Decided December 12, 1990.
Attorneys at law — Petition for reinstatement denied when petitioner has not made any restitution to clients who had been harmed by his conduct and has not regularly received alcohol counseling.
ON PETITION FOR REINSTATEMENT.
Petitioner, Robert E. DeMars, was indefinitely suspended from the practice of law on July 13, 1983. Toledo Bar Assn. v. DeMars (1983), 6 Ohio St.3d 12, 6 OBR 10, 450 N.E.2d 1168. Petitioner was found guilty of misconduct in his capacity as guardian of an estate, as representative of a client in a personal injury action, and as co-counsel of a deceased's estate, in that he violated: DR 2-106(A) (collecting an excessive fee); 1-102(A)(4) (conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation); 1-102(A)(5) (conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice); 1-102(A)(6) (conduct adversely reflecting on one's fitness to practice law); 6-101(A)(1) (handling a legal matter he was not competent to handle); 6-101(A)(2) (handling a legal matter without adequate preparation); 6-101(A)(3) (neglect of a legal matter entrusted); and 9-102(A) and (B) (preserving the identity of funds and property of client). We stressed in our opinion that we were bound by then Gov. Bar R. V(6), now Gov. Bar R. V(7), in determining the type of disciplinary action to be imposed on petitioner, and thus could not grant him the conditional suspension he requested. DeMars, supra, at 15, 6 OBR at 13, 450 N.E.2d at 1170-1171. Acknowledging that alcoholism is a mitigating factor in determining an errant attorney's punishment, we nevertheless stated that our first priority is to protect the public. Id. at 14-15, 6 OBR at 12-13, 450 N.E.2d at 1170.
On January 12, 1989, petitioner filed a petition for reinstatement. A hearing was held before a panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court on May 3, 1989. The majority of the panel held that there was no apparent reason presented why petitioner should not be reinstated. A dissenting view, however, urged that petitioner not be reinstated because he failed to affirmatively demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that he has the requisite character, fitness, and moral qualifications for readmission to the Bar of Ohio. Gov. Bar R. V(28). The dissenter argued that petitioner had not made any restitution to clients who had been harmed by his misconduct and had not regularly received alcohol counseling.
The board adopted the dissenting view from the panel report and recommended that petitioner be denied reinstatement at this time. The board also recommended that costs be taxed to the respondent.
We notified petitioner of the board's recommendation on June 25, 1990, and ordered petitioner to file any objections he might have thereto. Petitioner filed objections on July 10, 1990, and we scheduled a hearing on the merits. On September 12, 1990, petitioner waived his right to oral argument. Two days later relator asked for a continuance to file a brief and prepare for oral argument. On September 17, 1990, relator also consented to waiving oral argument.
David F. Cooper and Edward J. McCormick, Jr., for relator.
Robert E. DeMars, pro se.
Relator's request for a continuance to file its brief is denied, and oral argument has been waived by the parties. We concur with the board's assessment and recommendation. Respondent's petition for readmission to the practice of law is denied. Costs taxed to the respondent.
Judgment accordingly.
MOYER, C.J., SWEENEY, HOLMES, DOUGLAS, WRIGHT, H. BROWN and RESNICK, JJ., concur.