Case Title: Disciplinary Counsel v. Landis

Citation: 2010-Ohio-927

Docket Number: 20092263

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2010-03-17T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
Disciplinary Counsel v. Landis, Slip Opinion No. 2010-Ohio-927.] 
 
 
 
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. 2010-OHIO-927 
DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. LANDIS. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as Disciplinary Counsel v. Landis,  
Slip Opinion No. 2010-Ohio-927.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Conduct adversely reflecting on the lawyer's 
fitness to practice law — Consent-to-discipline agreement — One-year 
stayed suspension. 
(No. 2009-2263 — Submitted January 13, 2010 — Decided March 17, 2010.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 09-057. 
__________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, David Henry Landis of Lebanon, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0015021, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1979. 
This court suspended respondent’s license to practice for failure to register on 
December 2, 2005, and for failure to comply with continuing legal education 
requirements on January 1, 2009.  Additionally, on June 2, 2009, we imposed an 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
interim felony suspension from the practice of law based upon respondent’s 
conviction for operating a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol, a fourth-
degree felony. 
{¶ 2} Based upon his felony conviction, relator, Disciplinary Counsel, 
filed a complaint charging respondent with a single violation of Prof.Cond.R. 
8.4(h) (prohibiting conduct that adversely reflects on the lawyer’s fitness to 
practice law).  A panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline considered the cause on the parties’ consent-to-discipline agreement.  
See Section 11 of the Rules and Regulations Governing Procedure on Complaints 
and Hearings Before the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline 
of the Supreme Court (“BCGD Proc.Reg.”)   The panel accepted the agreement 
with the exception of a provision stating, “The parties further agree that 
respondent receive[] credit for the interim felony suspension imposed on June 2, 
2009.”  The board accepted the consent-to-discipline agreement and its 
stipulations of fact and now recommends that we suspend respondent from the 
practice of law for one year, stayed upon conditions, with no credit for his interim 
suspension. We adopt the board’s findings of misconduct and the recommended 
sanction. 
Misconduct 
{¶ 3} The stipulated facts of this case show that in December 2005, 
respondent voluntarily withdrew from the practice of law for personal and 
financial reasons. On October 6, 2008, a Warren County grand jury indicted him 
for two counts of operation of a motor vehicle while under the influence of 
alcohol or drug of abuse (“OMVI”) in violation of R.C. 4511.19(A)(1)(a) and 
4511.19(A)(1)(h), fourth-degree felonies based upon his previous conviction for 
three or more violations of R.C. 4511.19 or an equivalent statute, and one count of 
driving under suspension in violation of RC 4510.11(A), a first-degree 
misdemeanor. 
January Term, 2010 
3 
 
{¶ 4} Respondent entered a plea of guilty to OMVI in violation of 
4511.19(A)(1)(a), and the state dismissed the remaining charges.  The trial court 
sentenced respondent to 60 days of incarceration in the Warren County Jail, a 
$500 fine, a 20-year driver’s license suspension, completion of an inpatient 
program as arranged by the probation department, and completion of the 
Community Corrections Center program. 
{¶ 5} In February 2009, respondent voluntarily entered an outpatient 
program at Talbert House and continued to receive treatment until his sentencing 
on April 22, 2009.  Then, as part of his sentence, he completed a four-month 
program focusing on the prevention of relapse at the Warren County Correctional 
Center.  At the time the parties executed the consent-to-discipline agreement, 
respondent was participating in an aftercare program at Talbert House and was 
being monitored through the Warren County Probation Department.  He will 
remain on community control until April 2012. 
{¶ 6} In the consent-to-discipline agreement, respondent admits that he 
violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(h) by pleading guilty to a fourth-degree felony count of 
OMVI in violation of R.C. 4511.19(A)(1)(a). 
Sanction 
{¶ 7} The parties stipulated that respondent’s absence of a prior 
disciplinary record and his cooperative attitude and full and free disclosure to the 
board are mitigating factors.  See BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(a) and (d).  There is 
no evidence demonstrating the existence of any aggravating factors.  See BCGD 
Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1). 
{¶ 8} On the board’s recommendation, we accept the consent-to-
discipline agreement.  For his violation of Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(h), respondent is 
suspended from the practice of law in Ohio for one year.  The suspension is 
stayed, however, on the conditions that respondent:  (1) remain alcohol and drug 
free, (2) enter into a three-year contract with the Ohio Lawyers Assistance 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
Program and comply with the terms of that contract, (3) attend, at a minimum, a 
weekly meeting of Alcoholics Anonymous, and (4) comply with any terms of his 
criminal probation until such time that his probation has been terminated.  If 
respondent violates the conditions of the stay, the stay will be lifted, and 
respondent will serve the entire suspension.  Respondent shall receive no credit 
for the interim felony suspension imposed on June 2, 2009. 
{¶ 9} Costs are taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, 
C.J., 
and 
PFEIFER, 
LUNDBERG 
STRATTON, 
O’CONNOR, 
O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, and CUPP, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
Jonathan E. Coughlan, Disciplinary Counsel, and Stacy Solochek 
Beckman, Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. 
David H. Landis, pro se. 
______________________