Case Title: Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Bogart

Citation: 1999-Ohio-347

Docket Number: 19990388

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 1999-06-23T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Bogart, 86 Ohio St.3d 38, 1999-Ohio-347.] 
 
 
 
 
 
CUYAHOGA COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION v. BOGART. 
[Cite as Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Bogart (1999), 86 Ohio St.3d 38.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Eighteen-month suspension with sanction 
stayed on conditions — Appearing in municipal court representing clients 
after consuming alcoholic beverages. 
(No. 99-388 — Submitted April 14, 1999 — Decided June 23, 1999.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 98-15. 
 
On March 13, 1998, relator, Cuyahoga County Bar Association, filed a 
complaint charging respondent, Bruce P. Bogart of Cleveland, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0023377, with violating a Disciplinary Rule.  After respondent 
answered, the matter was heard by a panel of the Board of Commissioners on 
Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court (“board”). 
 
Based on the parties’ stipulations, exhibits, and testimony, the panel found 
that on several occasions before October 14, 1997, respondent represented clients 
in Bedford Municipal Court after he had consumed alcoholic beverages. On 
October 14, respondent again appeared in the municipal court after consuming 
alcoholic beverages.  The alcohol impaired respondent’s ability to represent his 
client, and respondent was not wearing a suit coat or tie that day.  Judge Peter 
Junkin questioned respondent about his appearance and the odor of alcohol on his 
person, and when respondent declined to take a breathalyzer test, Judge Junkin did 
not permit respondent to proceed.  Judge Junkin continued the matter and 
instructed respondent to contact relator and enroll in its alcohol treatment program.  
Respondent agreed, but failed to contact relator or enter relator’s alcohol treatment 
program.  Respondent admitted that he has had an ongoing alcohol problem since 
 
 
2
1990, that he has experienced withdrawal symptoms and blackouts, and that he 
regularly drank alcohol in the morning “to take the edge off.” 
 
The panel concluded that respondent’s conduct violated DR 1-102(A)(6) 
(engaging in conduct adversely reflecting on lawyer’s fitness to practice law). 
 
In mitigation, the panel determined that respondent was sincerely remorseful 
about his conduct and that he admitted a significant alcohol and dependency 
problem.  Respondent claimed that he had “bottomed out,” that he had stopped 
drinking, and that he regularly attended Alcoholics Anonymous meetings. But 
respondent ultimately conceded on cross-examination that he had not attended 
alcohol treatment programs regularly and that he had not read a book provided by 
Alcoholics Anonymous. 
 
The panel recommended that respondent receive an eighteen-month 
suspension from the practice of law in Ohio, with the suspension stayed on the 
following conditions:  (1) respondent undergo psychiatric or psychological 
evaluation and treatment for depression; (2) respondent enter into an Ohio Lawyers 
Assistance Program (“OLAP”) contract and successfully complete the terms of that 
agreement; (3) respondent be placed on probation for eighteen months, with a 
monitor assigned to report to relator on his status; and (4) respondent become 
current on all continuing legal education requirements, immediately report any 
disciplinary actions to the monitor, and remain in good standing with the Supreme 
Court of Ohio.  The board adopted the findings of fact, conclusions of law, and 
recommendation of the panel. 
__________________ 
 
Charles Scott Rawlings, Jon F. Deegan and Earl Williams, Jr., for relator. 
 
Bruce P. Bogart, pro se. 
__________________ 
 
 
3
 
Per Curiam.  We adopt the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of 
the board.  A stayed suspension with the conditions recommended by the board is 
an appropriate sanction for respondent’s misconduct and will assure that he 
receives the assistance necessary to treat his alcohol addiction and related 
dependency problems.  See, e.g., Disciplinary Counsel v. Maxwell (1998), 83 Ohio 
St.3d 7, 697 N.E.2d 597, and Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Baas (1997), 79 Ohio St.3d 
293, 681 N.E.2d 421, where we imposed similar sanctions for misconduct that 
included violations of DR 1-102(A)(6) and evidence of alcohol abuse.  
Accordingly, respondent is hereby suspended from the practice of law in Ohio for 
eighteen months, with the entire suspension stayed and respondent placed on 
probation under the conditions established by the board.  Costs taxed to 
respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur.