Case Title: Disciplinary Counsel v. May

Citation: 2005-Ohio-5320

Docket Number: 20050790

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2005-10-14T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. May, 106 Ohio St.3d 385, 2005-Ohio-5320.] 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. MAY. 
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. May, 106 Ohio St.3d 385, 2005-Ohio-5320.] 
Attorneys — Misconduct — Illegal conduct involving moral turpitude — Conduct 
involving fraud, deceit, dishonesty, or misrepresentation — Conduct 
adversely reflecting on fitness to practice law — Chemical dependency 
contributing to misconduct — Completion of treatment program in lieu of 
criminal conviction — Two-year suspension stayed on conditions — Two-
year probation. 
(No. 2005-0790 — Submitted June 15, 2005 — Decided October 14, 2005.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 04-063. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Neal Allan May, of Cincinnati, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0062317, was admitted to the Ohio bar in 1993. 
{¶ 2} On October 11, 2004, relator, Disciplinary Counsel, charged 
respondent with committing several violations of the Code of Professional 
Responsibility.  A panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline held a hearing and made findings of fact and a recommendation, which 
the board adopted. 
Misconduct 
{¶ 3} On May 29, 2003, the Butler County Grand Jury indicted 
respondent on two criminal charges of obtaining a dangerous drug through 
deception, a felony of the fifth degree, in violation of R.C. 2925.22(A).  Both 
charges resulted from respondent’s presentation of forged prescriptions for 
Vicodin, a Schedule III controlled substance, to a pharmacy. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
{¶ 4} In November 2003, respondent pleaded guilty to the two felony 
charges.  The trial court granted respondent’s motion to undergo drug treatment in 
lieu of conviction and stayed further criminal proceedings as provided in R.C. 
2951.041.  Respondent agreed to submit to both random and scheduled drug tests 
and attend Narcotics Anonymous or Alcoholics Anonymous meetings for at least 
one year.  In November 2004, the trial court found that respondent had 
successfully completed his treatment plan and had abstained from using drugs and 
alcohol during the previous year, and the court therefore dismissed the criminal 
charges against respondent as provided in R.C. 2951.041(E). 
{¶ 5} In response to relator’s charges, respondent admitted and the board 
found that respondent had violated DR 1-102(A)(3) (barring illegal conduct 
involving moral turpitude), DR 1-102(A)(4) (prohibiting conduct involving fraud, 
deceit, dishonesty, or misrepresentation), and DR 1-102(A)(6) (prohibiting 
conduct that adversely reflects on a lawyer’s fitness to practice law). 
Sanction 
{¶ 6} In recommending a sanction for respondent’s misconduct, the 
board considered the aggravating and mitigating factors listed in Section 10 of the 
Rules and Regulations Governing Procedure on Complaints and Hearings Before 
the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline (“BCGD Proc.Reg.”).  
The board cited no aggravating factors in connection with respondent’s actions. 
{¶ 7} The board did note several mitigating factors, including the 
absence of any prior disciplinary record and a cooperative attitude during the 
proceedings.  BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(a) and (d). 
{¶ 8} The board also found that respondent had been professionally 
diagnosed as having been chemically dependent on pain medications and that his 
abuse of those medications had affected his behavior and contributed to his 
misconduct.  Consistent with the parties’ stipulations, the board concluded that 
respondent had successfully completed an approved treatment program and is in a 
January Term, 2005 
3 
position to provide ethical and professional service to his clients.  BCGD 
Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(g). 
{¶ 9} The parties jointly suggested that respondent be suspended from 
the practice of law for two years, with the entire suspension stayed on conditions.  
The board accepted this recommendation. 
{¶ 10} We agree that respondent violated all of the provisions cited in the 
board’s report, and we also agree that a two-year stayed suspension from the 
practice of law is appropriate.  The board’s recommended sanction is consistent 
with the sanction we have imposed in similar cases.  See, e.g., Disciplinary 
Counsel v. Casalinuovo (1993), 66 Ohio St.3d 367, 613 N.E.2d 177 (attorney’s 
successful completion of a treatment-in-lieu-of-conviction program warranted a 
two-year stayed suspension).  Respondent has accepted full responsibility for his 
actions and has agreed to meet all the conditions recommended by the panel and 
the board. 
{¶ 11} Accordingly, respondent is hereby suspended from the practice of 
law in Ohio for a period of two years, with the entire suspension stayed, and 
respondent is placed on a two-year probation on condition that he (1) remain 
drug-free and alcohol-free, (2) continue participating in the Ohio Lawyers 
Assistance Program, (3) be subject to random urine analysis and testing for 
substance and alcohol abuse, (4) attend a meeting of Narcotics Anonymous or 
Alcoholics Anonymous at least once each week, and (5) continue counseling with 
a psychiatrist or therapist at least once each quarter.  If respondent violates any of 
these conditions, the stay will be lifted, and respondent will serve the entire term 
as a period of actual suspension.  Costs are taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., RESNICK, PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’CONNOR, 
O’DONNELL and LANZINGER, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
Jonathan E. Coughlan, Disciplinary Counsel, and Stacy Solochek 
Beckman, Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. 
 
Neal A. May, pro se. 
_______________________