Case Title: Disciplinary Counsel v. Gideon

Citation: 2004-Ohio-6587

Docket Number: 20041062

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2004-12-15T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Gideon, 104 Ohio St.3d 418, 2004-Ohio-6587.] 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. GIDEON. 
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Gideon, 104 Ohio St.3d 418, 
2004-Ohio-6587.] 
Attorneys at law – Misconduct – Neglecting entrusted legal matters – Failing to 
carry out a contract for employment – Damaging a client – Engaging in 
conduct adversely reflecting on fitness to practice law – Two-year 
suspension, stayed on conditions. 
(No. 2004-1062 — Submitted August 17, 2004 — Decided December 15, 2004.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 03-013. 
_________________________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, John Joseph Gideon of Columbus, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0008151, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1978.  
Respondent is a sole practitioner who has worked almost entirely in criminal 
defense and whose practice dealt extensively with death-penalty cases.  On 
February 10, 2003, relator, Disciplinary Counsel, charged respondent with 
violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility.  A panel of the Board of 
Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline heard the cause and, based on the 
parties’ comprehensive stipulations, exhibits, and testimony, made findings of 
fact, conclusions of law, and a recommendation. 
Count I 
{¶ 2} The panel found that respondent was retained by the Ohio Public 
Defender’s Office to represent John Stojetz, who had been sentenced to death for 
aggravated murder, in postconviction proceedings.  The court of appeals granted 
respondent numerous extensions in which to file Stojetz’s appeal brief.  In 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
December 2001, respondent was contacted twice by a court administrator 
regarding the status of the brief and was warned once that if a brief was not filed 
by December 31, 2001, the case would be dismissed.  Additionally, Stojetz’s 
sister repeatedly attempted to contact respondent regarding the status of her 
brother’s pending appeal.  Respondent failed to respond to her attempts to contact 
him, and Stojetz contacted the Ohio Public Defender’s Office. 
{¶ 3} Respondent never filed a brief, and on January 10, 2002, the court 
dismissed Stojetz’s appeal with prejudice.  Subsequently, the Ohio Public 
Defender took over the case and filed a motion for substitution of counsel and a 
motion to reopen the appeal.  The court of appeals denied the motion to reopen 
the appeal. 
Count II 
{¶ 4} The panel found that respondent was retained to appeal the rape 
conviction of Casaviero Senu-Oke.  On numerous occasions throughout May and 
June 2002, respondent was contacted by both Senu-Oke and a friend of Senu-Oke 
regarding the status of the appeal.  Respondent failed to respond to any of these 
communications. 
{¶ 5} On May 10, 2002, the court of appeals notified respondent that 
unless he  filed a brief within seven days,  Senu-Oke’s appeal would be dismissed.  
Respondent did not timely file a brief, and on June 12, 2002, the court of appeals 
dismissed the appeal.  Subsequently, the Ohio Public Defender’s Office filed an 
appearance as counsel for Senu-Oke and was granted a motion to reopen the 
appeal. 
Count III 
{¶ 6} The panel found that respondent was also appointed appellate 
counsel to appeal Terrence Crawford’s criminal conviction.  After receiving one 
extension of time to file his brief and later receiving notification from the court of 
appeals that the appeal would be dismissed unless a brief was filed within seven 
January Term, 2004 
3 
days, respondent again failed to file a brief.  On March 20, 2002, the court of 
appeals dismissed the appeal. 
Violations 
{¶ 7} After considering the parties’ stipulations, the board found that 
respondent had violated DR 1-102(A)(6) (barring an attorney from engaging in 
conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law), 6-101(A)(3) 
(barring an attorney from neglecting an entrusted legal matter), 7-101(A)(2) 
(barring an attorney from intentionally failing to carry out a contract of 
employment for legal services), and 7-101(A)(3) (barring an attorney from 
intentionally prejudicing or damaging a client during the course of a professional 
representation). 
Sanction 
{¶ 8} In recommending a sanction for this misconduct, the panel 
considered the aggravating and mitigating features of respondent’s case.  See 
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.”).  In mitigation, the panel found that respondent had no prior 
disciplinary record and had been extremely cooperative in the disciplinary process 
and forthright in his admissions. BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(a) and (d).  
Respondent also indicated his eagerness to continue his practice in the stressful 
area of criminal law. 
{¶ 9} The panel also found, based upon the uncontroverted professional 
testimony of Dr. James P. Reardon, a psychologist, that respondent suffered from 
deep depression and anxiety that had substantially impaired his ability to practice 
law during the underlying events.  BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(g)(i), (ii), and (iv).  
Respondent is currently being treated by Dr. Reardon and Dr. Jay E. Martin, a 
physician.  The panel was convinced that respondent was managing his medical 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
conditions successfully with medication and that respondent had shown 
significant improvement since he began treatment. 
{¶ 10} In mitigation, the panel also received numerous letters of support 
from respondent’s friends and colleagues.  They detailed his professional 
commitment and dedication to his work and emphasized his exemplary personal 
and ethical standards over the last 20 years.  Some letters described the lapses in 
respondent’s performance as extremely out of character, unexpected, and 
surprising.  These letters convinced the panel that respondent has had a significant 
impact on the legal community throughout his lengthy career, is a hard-working, 
committed professional, and remains a highly respected and honored member of 
the bar. 
{¶ 11} The panel was also persuaded by testimony from two witnesses, 
both of whom work for a public defender’s office.  These witnesses worked with 
respondent extensively over several years on extremely complicated death-penalty 
cases.  One witness testified that respondent was deeply honest and forthcoming 
in admitting that he was experiencing difficulties in his legal practice.  The 
witness also testified that respondent honestly discussed whether the difficulties 
he was having were an issue in their collaborative death-penalty work and 
maintained that respondent had met all appointed deadlines.  The other witness 
reported that the respondent was “conscientious” and “compassionate” and that 
his work was “meticulous,” adding that respondent was “probably the most 
conscientious attorney that [he’d] ever worked with.” 
{¶ 12} The board recommended, consistent with the parties’ suggested 
sanction,  that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for a period of 
two years and that the entire suspension be stayed upon compliance with the 
following conditions: (1) respondent must continue treatment with the two 
professionals by whom he is currently being treated, (2) respondent must continue 
to comply with the treatment therapies prescribed by those two professionals, (3) 
January Term, 2004 
5 
respondent must work with assigned co-counsel on his death-penalty cases and 
work with a monitor assigned by relator on all other criminal cases, and (4) 
respondent must comply with all requirements for active registration. 
{¶ 13} Upon review, we agree that respondent violated DR 1-102(A)(6), 
6-101(A)(3), 7-101(A)(2), and 7-101(A)(3).  We also find that a two-year 
suspension stayed on the recommended conditions is appropriate. 
{¶ 14} Accordingly, respondent is hereby suspended from the practice of 
law in Ohio for two years; however, the entire suspension period is stayed on the 
conditions that (1) respondent continues treatment with the two professionals by 
whom he is currently being treated, (2) respondent continues to comply with the 
treatment therapies prescribed by those two professionals, (3) respondent works 
with assigned co-counsel on his death-penalty cases and works with a monitor 
assigned by relator on all other criminal cases, and (4) respondent complies with 
all requirements for active registration.  If respondent violates any condition of 
the stay, the stay will be lifted, and respondent will serve the entire two-year 
suspension.  Costs are taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, 
O’CONNOR and O’DONNELL, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
 
Jonathan Coughlan, Disciplinary Counsel, and Robert R. Berger, Assistant 
Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. 
 
John J. Gideon, pro se. 
__________________________