Case Title: Disciplinary Counsel v. Goodall

Citation: 2004-Ohio-5583

Docket Number: 20040825

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2004-11-03T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Goodall, 103 Ohio St.3d 501, 2004-Ohio-5583.] 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. GOODALL. 
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Goodall,  
103 Ohio St.3d 501, 2004-Ohio-5583.] 
Attorneys at law—Conduct adversely reflecting on fitness to practice law—Felony 
conviction—Substantial mitigation. 
(No. 2004-0825– Submitted June 29, 2004 — Decided November 3, 2004.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 03-094. 
_______________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, L. Sharon Goodall of Dayton, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0061132, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1993.  
On October 6, 2003, relator, Disciplinary Counsel, charged respondent with 
having violated the Code of Professional Responsibility.  A panel of the Board of 
Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline heard the cause and, based on 
comprehensive stipulations, exhibits, and testimony, made findings of fact, 
conclusions of law, and a recommendation, all of which the board adopted. 
Misconduct 
{¶ 2} Prior to her admission to the Ohio bar, respondent had worked for 
many years as a nurse.  After her admission, respondent practiced law in a small 
law firm for several years and shared office space with another attorney.  
Respondent’s practice has consisted mainly of representing indigent criminal 
defendants who were assigned to her by court appointment. 
{¶ 3} On May 14, 2003, respondent was convicted of aggravated assault 
in violation of R.C. 2903.12(A)(2), a felony of the fourth degree, in the 
Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas.  The incident underlying her 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
conviction occurred on July 19, 2002, when respondent threw a bottle that injured 
her husband’s arm during a domestic dispute.  Respondent did little for her 
defense, relying on an attorney who apparently became ill during the proceedings.  
Despite the serious nature of the charge against her, she ultimately pled no contest 
to the felony because she hoped to avoid adverse publicity for her family. 
{¶ 4} Respondent was sentenced to community control for a period of up 
to five years and ordered to attend a batterer’s intervention program and to 
undergo mental-health counseling.  In September 2003, the trial court waived 
community-control sanctions relating to the batterer’s intervention program and 
mental-health counseling.  On March 3, 2004, the court terminated respondent’s 
community control, finding that she had abided by all the conditions previously 
imposed and was rehabilitated. 
{¶ 5} On July 17, 2003, we suspended respondent’s license to practice 
law for an interim period, pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(5)(A)(3), upon receiving 
notice of her felony conviction.  See In re Goodall, 99 Ohio St.3d 1471, 2003-
Ohio-3801, 791 N.E.2d 986. 
{¶ 6} Based on respondent’s conviction, the board found that respondent 
had violated DR 1-102(A)(6) (a lawyer shall not engage in conduct adversely 
reflecting on the attorney’s fitness to practice law).  Relator withdrew a charge 
that respondent had also violated DR 1-102(A)(3) (barring illegal conduct 
involving moral turpitude). 
Sanction 
{¶ 7} In recommending a sanction for respondent’s misconduct, the 
board reviewed the mitigating and aggravating 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 found that respondent had never had a prior disciplinary offense and 
that the facts of her conviction did not involve dishonest or selfish motives.  
January Term, 2004 
3 
BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(a) and (b).  In addition, respondent cooperated fully in 
the disciplinary process, and she may face additional penalties or sanctions 
relative to her nursing license as a result of her felony conviction.  BCGD 
Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(d) and (f).  The board also observed that her husband’s injury 
from their altercation was fairly minor and not permanent. 
{¶ 8} The board did not find that alcohol or other substance abuse 
contributed to the incident underlying respondent’s conviction.  Respondent has 
been receiving counseling since her sentencing, including sessions of cognitive 
behavioral therapy, anger management, and stress-reduction techniques.  BCGD 
Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(h).  A report confirmed respondent’s progress and related that 
respondent had expressed her sorrow and contrition about her crime to her 
therapist. 
{¶ 9} The board observed that respondent has also resolutely complied 
with the suspension ordered on July 17, 2003, and that if permitted to return to the 
practice of law, she hoped to continue accepting court appointments, including 
those to serve as a guardian ad litem for juveniles. 
{¶ 10} Finally, the board found mitigating the nine character letters 
submitted from respondent’s colleagues and acquaintances, all of whom earnestly 
recommended her honesty, integrity, and trustworthiness.  Two witnesses also 
testified during the panel hearing to respondent’s good character.  The board 
found no aggravating features in respondent’s case. 
{¶ 11} Relator’s counsel suggested that respondent’s law license be 
suspended for one year.  Respondent suggested that she receive no more than a 
one-year suspension and also that she be credited for the suspension she has been 
under since July 17, 2003, a proposal to which relator did not object. 
{¶ 12} Based on the serious nature of respondent’s conviction but also on 
the existence of substantial mitigating factors and the absence of any aggravating 
factors, the board recommended that respondent be suspended from the practice 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
of law for six months and that she also be given credit for her Gov.Bar R. 
V(5)(A)(3) suspension.  In making this recommendation, the board distinguished 
respondent’s case from those in which a more severe sanction has been imposed 
for violations of DR 1-102(A)(3) and for more egregious circumstances.  See 
Columbus Bar Assn. v. Harris (1982), 1 Ohio St.3d 33, 1 OBR 68, 437 N.E.2d 
596 (DR 1-102 [A][3] violation found and one-year suspension warranted for an 
attorney’s felony conviction of aggravated assault for having struck a male friend 
of his ex-wife with a bat, causing serious injury); Muskingum Cty. Bar Assn. v. 
Workman (1985), 17 Ohio St.3d 95, 17 OBR 216, 477 N.E.2d 632 (DR 1-
102[A][3] violation found and one-year suspension warranted for attorney’s 
convictions, after several previous similar incidents, of having assaulted a former 
girlfriend and trespassing on her property); Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Holcombe 
(2001), 93 Ohio St.3d 141, 753 N.E.2d 176 (DR 1-102[A][3] and [6] violations 
found and indefinite suspension warranted for attorney’s conviction of attempted 
felonious assault on a woman with whom he was having an affair); and 
Disciplinary Counsel v. Cushion (2001), 92 Ohio St.3d 144, 749 N.E.2d 224 (DR 
l-102[A][3] and [6] violations found and indefinite suspension warranted for 
attorney’s conviction of felonious assault, carrying a concealed weapon, and 
discharging a firearm while under the influence of alcohol and drugs, and driving 
under the influence). 
{¶ 13} We agree that respondent violated DR 1-102(A)(6) as found by the 
board and that a six-month suspension with credit for time served is appropriate 
for the reasons the board expressed.  Respondent is therefore suspended from the 
practice of law in Ohio for six months; however, she shall be credited for our 
interim suspension of her law license on July 17, 2003.  The interim suspension is 
thereby immediately terminated.  We further order that respondent is reinstated to 
the practice of law.  Costs are taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
January Term, 2004 
5 
 
MOYER, C.J., RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, LUNDBERG 
STRATTON, O’CONNOR and O’DONNELL, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
 
Jonathan E. Coughlan, Disciplinary Counsel, and Stacy Solochek 
Beckman, Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. 
 
Charles J. Kettlewell and Charles W. Kettlewell, for respondent. 
_________________________