Case Title: Disciplinary Counsel v. Wrage

Citation: 2014-Ohio-807

Docket Number: 2013-0931

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2014-03-11T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
Disciplinary Counsel v. Wrage, Slip Opinion No. 2014-Ohio-807.] 
 
 
NOTICE 
This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in 
an advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports.  Readers are requested 
to promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 
65 South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographical or 
other formal errors in the opinion, in order that corrections may be 
made before the opinion is published. 
 
SLIP OPINION NO. 2014-OHIO-807 
DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. WRAGE. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets,  
it may be cited as Disciplinary Counsel v. Wrage,  
Slip Opinion No. 2014-Ohio-807.] 
Attorneys—Misconduct—Failure to pay child support—Failure to respond to 
reasonable requests for information—Two-year suspension with one year 
stayed on conditions, and no credit for interim suspension. 
(No. 2013-0931—Submitted August 21, 2013—Decided March 11, 2014.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 12-006. 
____________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Eric Andrew Wrage of Minford, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0070463, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1999. 
{¶ 2} On October 19, 2009, the secretary of the Board of Commissioners 
on Grievances and Discipline submitted a certified copy of a determination that 
Wrage was in default of a child-support order.  In accordance with Gov.Bar R. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
V(5)(A), we entered an interim suspension order and referred the matter to relator, 
disciplinary counsel, for investigation and the commencement of disciplinary 
proceedings.  In re Wrage, 123 Ohio St.3d 1498, 2009-Ohio-6095, 916 N.E.2d 
1077. 
{¶ 3} In a complaint certified to the board on February 13, 2012, relator, 
disciplinary counsel, charged Wrage with violations of DR 1-102(A)(6) 
(prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct that adversely reflects on the 
lawyer’s fitness to practice law), Prof.Cond.R. 8.1(b) (prohibiting a lawyer from 
knowingly failing to respond to a demand for information by a disciplinary 
authority during an investigation), 8.4(d) (prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in 
conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice), and 8.4(h) (prohibiting 
a lawyer from engaging in conduct that adversely reflects on the lawyer’s fitness 
to practice law), and Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) (prohibiting a lawyer from neglecting or 
refusing to assist in a disciplinary investigation).1  The conduct giving rise to 
these alleged violations includes a 2006 misdemeanor conviction for aggravated 
menacing, Wrage’s default on his child-support obligation beginning in 2009, 
various contempt orders arising out of his child-support default, and his failure to 
cooperate in the resulting disciplinary investigation. 
{¶ 4} Although Wrage accepted service of the complaint, he did not timely 
file an answer; several months after relator moved for default, Wrage finally 
answered the complaint, and the matter was set for hearing. 
{¶ 5} The parties submitted stipulations of fact and misconduct, agreed to 
dismiss the alleged violation of DR 1-102(A)(6), and proposed a two-year 
suspension with one year stayed on conditions, with credit for time served under 
the interim child-support suspension, as the appropriate sanction for Wrage’s 
                                                 
1 Relator charged respondent with misconduct under applicable rules for acts occurring before and 
after February 1, 2007, the effective date of the Rules of Professional Conduct, which supersede 
the Code of Professional Responsibility. 
January Term, 2014 
3 
 
misconduct.  In support of these stipulations, they submitted 19 stipulated exhibits 
and Wrage’s testimony at the hearing. 
{¶ 6} The panel adopted the parties’ stipulations of fact, found that Wrage 
had committed the remaining charged misconduct, and adopted the parties’ 
proposed sanction.  The board adopted the panel’s findings of fact, conclusions of 
law, and recommended sanction—except the board would not grant Wrage credit 
for time served under the interim child-support suspension.  We adopt the board’s 
findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommended sanction. 
Misconduct 
{¶ 7} The stipulated facts, exhibits, and Wrage’s hearing testimony 
demonstrate that he defaulted on his child-support obligation in 2009, which 
resulted in the suspension of his drivers’ license and the interim suspension of his 
license to practice law in Ohio.  He was found to be in contempt of court, but he 
entered into an agreement with the Scioto County Child Support Enforcement 
Agency (“Scioto County CSEA”) and purged his contempt with a payment of 
$4,039.30. 
{¶ 8} In November 2010, the Scioto County CSEA issued a second notice 
of default against Wrage, and in June 2011, he was once again found in contempt 
of court.  Wrage agreed to pay another $4,039.20 to purge the contempt, but failed 
to do so.  Consequently, the court ordered him to serve 30 days in jail, but gave 
him until January 24, 2012, to purge his contempt.  Wrage filed for bankruptcy in 
December 2011, listing $17,670 in unpaid child-support obligations on his 
petition, but he made a $4,039.20 payment in January 2012 so that his jail 
sentence would remain suspended.  In July 2012, the Scioto County CSEA filed a 
third motion for contempt.  Wrage has filed a motion to modify his ongoing child-
support obligation, but as of March 21, 2013, his arrearage was more than 
$40,000. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
{¶ 9} Relator first contacted Wrage by mail in March 2010 and instructed 
him to contact the Ohio Lawyers’ Assistance Program (“OLAP”) and to provide 
relator with a status update on his child-support arrearages and any counseling 
that he might be receiving.  He did not respond to the letter that relator mailed to 
him in March 2010 or to a second copy that was hand-delivered to his residence 
on April 22, 2010.  Nor did he respond to a subpoena ordering him to appear for a 
deposition.  He did not answer the complaint in this disciplinary action until after 
relator moved for default. 
{¶ 10} These facts clearly and convincingly prove that Wrage violated 
Prof.Cond.R. 8.1(b), 8.4(d), and 8.4(h) and Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G), as charged in the 
complaint. 
Sanction 
{¶ 11} When imposing sanctions for attorney misconduct, we consider 
relevant factors, including the ethical duties that the lawyer violated and the 
sanctions imposed in similar cases.  Stark Cty. Bar Assn. v. Buttacavoli, 96 Ohio 
St.3d 424, 2002-Ohio-4743, 775 N.E.2d 818, ¶ 16.  In making a final 
determination, we also weigh evidence of the aggravating and mitigating factors 
listed in BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B).  Disciplinary Counsel v. Broeren, 115 Ohio 
St.3d 473, 2007-Ohio-5251, 875 N.E.2d 935, ¶ 21. 
{¶ 12} The board found that no aggravating factors were present.  It 
adopted the parties’ stipulations that Wrage has no prior disciplinary violations2 
and that other penalties or sanctions have been imposed.  See BCGD Proc.Reg. 
10(B)(2)(a) and (f).  The board adopted the parties’ stipulated sanction of a two-
year suspension with the second year stayed on the conditions that Wrage (1) 
satisfy all of the conditions identified in our November 19, 2009 interim 
                                                 
2 During the pendency of this action, however, we have imposed a suspension for Wrage’s failure 
to comply with the registration requirements of Gov.Bar R. VI for the 2013-2015 biennium.  In re 
Attorney Registration Suspension of Wrage, 136 Ohio St.3d 1544,  2013-Ohio-4827, 996 N.E.2d 
973.   
January Term, 2014 
5 
 
suspension order, (2) remain in counseling through the Paint Valley Behavioral 
Health Center, (3) commit no further misconduct, and (4) participate in monitored 
probation during the stayed portion of his suspension.  The board, however, 
rejected the parties’ stipulation that the time that Wrage served under the interim 
suspension order be credited against the unstayed portion of the suspension. 
{¶ 13} In a default proceeding in Disciplinary Counsel v. Curry, 112 Ohio 
St.3d 130, 2006-Ohio-6517, 858 N.E.2d 392, we imposed a one-year suspension 
for an attorney’s failure to comply with child-support orders and failure to 
cooperate in the resulting disciplinary investigation.  Noting that the attorney had 
failed to adequately address his child-support obligations for 12 years while 
holding a license to practice law and his failure to appear to explain why he was 
unable to do so, we declined to credit him for time served under the interim 
suspension. 
{¶ 14} And in Disciplinary Counsel v. Redfield, 116 Ohio St.3d 262, 
2007-Ohio-6039, 878 N.E.2d 10, we disciplined an attorney who neglected a 
client’s legal matter in addition to failing to pay child support.  Unlike Curry, who 
defaulted in the resulting disciplinary proceeding, Redfield eventually appeared to 
defend against the relator’s motion for default, though his license was already 
under suspension for an attorney-registration violation.  Id. at ¶ 2, 17, 28.  We 
adopted the board’s recommendation and suspended him for two years, with 
credit for time served under the interim suspension.  Id. at ¶ 32. 
{¶ 15} Although the following stipulated facts were not alleged in the 
complaint or discussed by the board, we find that they are relevant in determining 
the appropriate sanction for Wrage’s misconduct.  In October 2009, Wrage was 
convicted of driving under the influence (“DUI”) in Lycoming County, 
Pennsylvania, and sentenced to three days to six months in prison and ordered to 
pay $1,901.50 in fines and costs.  He served three days in prison and completed 
six months of probation without incident. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
 
{¶ 16} In May 2012, Wrage pleaded guilty to a first-degree-misdemeanor 
charge of DUI, driving without a license, and several minor traffic violations, and 
he pleaded no contest to a second-degree-misdemeanor charge of resisting arrest, 
all of which arose out of a May 25, 2011 traffic stop in Greene County, 
Pennsylvania.  He was sentenced to 90 days to five years in prison and more than 
$3,000 in fines and costs, but after serving 90 days in prison, he was placed on 
probation for the remainder of the five-year term. 
{¶ 17} Wrage violated his probation in February 2013 by testing positive 
for alcohol during a probation visit and was sentenced to 12 days in prison—ten 
of which he served in an in-patient substance-abuse treatment facility.  Since 
March 2013, Wrage’s probation has been monitored by the Ohio Department of 
Rehabilitation and Control.  At the time of the hearing, he was in compliance with 
the requirements of his probation.  In January 2013, he began participating in 
biweekly counseling for depression and alcohol dependency. 
{¶ 18} It is not clear from the record when Wrage’s problems with alcohol 
began, although he testified that he became involved with OLAP shortly after 
completing law school and completed a two-year contract with the program.  He 
testified that he has not sought assistance from the program for his more recent 
problems and indicated that Alcoholics Anonymous and other faith-based 
programs do not work for him because he is agnostic.  We note that Wrage was 
not diagnosed with depression until November 2012 and did not seek counseling 
for his ongoing issues with alcohol until December 2012 or January 2013.  Thus, 
at the time of the hearing on this matter, he had only been receiving help for 
approximately six months.  As a condition of his probation for his May 2011 DUI, 
however, he is obligated to remain in treatment until November 2017. 
{¶ 19} Based on the foregoing, we agree that a two-year suspension with 
one year stayed on conditions and no credit for time served under the interim 
child-support suspension is the proper sanction for Wrage’s misconduct.  This 
January Term, 2014 
7 
 
suspension is comparable to the sanctions we have imposed for comparable 
misconduct in Curry and Redfield, but will allow for a period of monitored 
practice on Wrage’s reinstatement to ensure that his underlying alcohol 
dependency does not negatively affect his clients. 
{¶ 20} Accordingly, Eric Andrew Wrage is suspended for two years, with 
the second year stayed on the conditions that Wrage (1) submits satisfactory proof 
to the board that he is no longer in default on his child-support obligation, or that 
he is subject to and in compliance with a withholding or deduction notice or a 
new or modified child-support order to collect current support or any arrearage 
due under the child-support order that was in default, (2) continues to participate 
in counseling through the Scioto Paint Valley Mental Health Center for not less 
than three years or for one year after he is reinstated to the practice of law, 
whichever is longer, (3) serves a one-year period of monitored probation in 
accordance with Gov.Bar R. V(9) upon his reinstatement to the practice of law, 
and (4) commits no further misconduct.  Costs are taxed to Wrage. 
Judgment accordingly. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, O’DONNELL, KENNEDY, and FRENCH, JJ., 
concur. 
LANZINGER and O’NEILL, JJ., concur with the sanction but would give 
credit for time served under the interim suspension. 
____________________ 
Joseph M. Caligiuri, Chief Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, and Donald M. 
Sheetz, Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. 
Eric Andrew Wrage, pro se. 
_________________________