Case Title: Disciplinary Counsel v. Cantrell

Citation: 2011-Ohio-4554

Docket Number: 

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2011-09-14T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
Disciplinary Counsel v. Cantrell, Slip Opinion No. 2011-Ohio-4554.] 
 
 
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. 2011-OHIO-4554 
DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. CANTRELL. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as Disciplinary Counsel v. Cantrell,  
Slip Opinion No. 2011-Ohio-4554.] 
(No. 2011-0281— Submitted May 24, 2011 — Decided September 14, 2011.) 
Attorneys — Misconduct — Felony grand theft — Possession of cocaine — 
Indefinite suspension, to be served consecutively to indefinite suspension 
previously imposed. 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 09-093. 
__________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} This court admitted respondent, Doreen M. Cantrell of Willoughby, 
Ohio, Attorney Registration No. 0040032, to the practice of law in Ohio in 1988.  
The Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline has concluded that 
respondent engaged in professional misconduct and recommends that she be 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
permanently disbarred from the practice of law, with costs of these proceedings 
taxed to her. 
{¶ 2} We agree that respondent committed professional misconduct as 
found by the board; however, we reject the board’s recommended sanction and 
conclude that an indefinite suspension is the appropriate sanction in this case.  
Accordingly, we indefinitely suspend respondent from the practice of law, a 
sanction which is to be served consecutively to the indefinite suspension we 
imposed on respondent on May 20, 2010. 
Procedural History 
{¶ 3} On September 23, 2009, respondent pleaded guilty to two counts of 
felony grand theft and one count of possession of cocaine.  On December 14, 
2009, we imposed an interim felony suspension of respondent’s license pursuant 
to Gov.Bar R. V(5)(A)(4), pending further disciplinary proceedings.  See In re 
Cantrell, 123 Ohio St.3d 1517, 2009-Ohio-6503, 918 N.E.2d 162. 
{¶ 4} On December 7, 2009, relator, Disciplinary Counsel, filed a two-
count complaint against respondent arising from the 2009 convictions, count one 
relating to grand theft and count two relating to possession of cocaine.  
Disciplinary Counsel alleged that respondent’s actions violated Prof.Cond.R. 
8.4(b) (a lawyer shall not commit an illegal act that reflects adversely on the 
lawyer’s honesty or trustworthiness) and (h) (a lawyer shall not engage in any 
other conduct that adversely reflects on the lawyer’s fitness to practice law). 
{¶ 5} The parties thereafter stipulated that respondent’s actions violated 
Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(b) and (h).  They further stipulated to the following mitigating 
factors: (1) that respondent provided full and free disclosure during the 
investigation, (2) that she displayed a cooperative attitude, and (3) that other 
penalties or sanctions had been imposed.  They also stipulated to certain 
aggravating factors, agreeing that respondent (1) exhibited a dishonest and selfish 
motive, (2) engaged in multiple criminal offenses, and (3) had a prior disciplinary 
January Term, 2011 
3 
 
record, including the interim felony suspension imposed in this case and an 
indefinite suspension imposed by this court on May 20, 2010 in a separate case, 
Disciplinary Counsel v. Cantrell, 125 Ohio St.3d 458, 2010-Ohio-2114, 928 
N.E.2d 1100. 
{¶ 6} The panel then conducted a hearing, but respondent neither appeared 
nor submitted additional mitigating evidence.  The panel therefore accepted the 
parties’ stipulations regarding the findings of fact and conclusions of law and 
recommended permanent disbarment.  The board adopted the panel’s findings, 
conclusions, and recommended sanction and further recommended that the cost of 
the proceedings be taxed to respondent. 
{¶ 7} Respondent objected to the board’s recommendation, arguing that 
her conduct warrants an indefinite suspension rather than permanent disbarment.  
In support of the lesser sanction, respondent argued that she had made a timely 
and good-faith effort to make restitution, that her dual diagnosis of chemical 
dependency and mental illness contributed to the cause of her misconduct, and 
that she is being successfully treated so as to enable her to return to competent, 
ethical professional practice under specified conditions.  Respondent also attached 
additional 
mitigating 
evidence 
to 
her 
objections, 
including 
medical, 
psychological, and testimonial reports and letters. 
{¶ 8} Relator filed an answer to the objections, arguing that respondent 
should not be permitted to supplement the record absent exceptional 
circumstances and urging that the documents do not meet the requirements for 
mitigation evidence.  Relator further maintains that based on the evidence 
properly before the court, permanent disbarment is the appropriate sanction. 
Misconduct 
Count One 
{¶ 9} On February 23, 2009, a grand jury indicted respondent on one 
count of tampering with records, two counts of grand theft, and two counts of 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
falsification related to her illegally obtaining Section 8 housing.  Respondent 
pleaded guilty to two counts of grand theft, each a felony of the fourth degree.  
She was sentenced to 120 days in jail with credit for 65 days served, followed by 
three years of community control.  The court imposed further sanctions and 
conditions, including a requirement that respondent complete the NorthEast Ohio 
Community Alternative Program (“NEOCAP”).  Upon her release from the 
program, respondent was to attend Alcoholics Anonymous meetings four times 
per week, follow all NEOCAP aftercare recommendations, continue mental-
health counseling, and complete 200 hours of community service. 
Count Two 
{¶ 10} On July 13, 2009, respondent was indicted on one count of 
possession of cocaine, one count of trafficking in cocaine, and one count of 
complicity to traffic in cocaine.  She pleaded guilty to one count of possession of 
cocaine, a felony of the fifth degree, and was sentenced to 120 days with credit 
for 65 days served, with the same sanctions and conditions that were imposed in 
the grand-theft case. 
{¶ 11} As noted earlier, respondent has admitted that her conduct violated 
Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(b) and (h).  Clear and convincing evidence supports these 
findings, and thus, we adopt the findings and conclusions of the board as to these 
counts. 
Sanction 
{¶ 12} In Columbus Bar Assn. v. Linnen, 111 Ohio St.3d 507, 2006-Ohio-
5480, 857 N.E.2d 539, at ¶ 25, we stated, “In determining the appropriate sanction 
for professional misconduct, we consider the duties violated, the actual or 
potential injury caused, the lawyer’s mental state, existence of aggravating or 
mitigating circumstances, and sanctions imposed in similar cases.” Further, as we 
noted in Disciplinary Counsel v. O'Neill, 103 Ohio St.3d 204, 2004-Ohio-4704, 
815 N.E.2d 286, ¶ 53, in fashioning a sanction we are mindful that “the primary 
January Term, 2011 
5 
 
purpose of disciplinary sanctions is not to punish the offender, but to protect the 
public.” 
Mitigating Factors 
{¶ 13} As mitigating factors, the board found that respondent had 
provided full and free disclosure during the investigation, displayed a cooperative 
attitude, and received other penalties and sanctions. BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(d) 
and (f).  Relator has so stipulated, and we agree with the board’s determination in 
this respect. 
{¶ 14} Respondent has also submitted additional medical, psychological, 
and testimonial evidence to this court in support of mitigation, but failed to 
present it at the hearing, and it was not considered by the board.  As we held in 
Columbus Bar Assn. v. Sterner (1996), 77 Ohio St.3d 164, 167-168, 1996-Ohio-
324, 672 N.E.2d 633, “the time for the production of evidence is at the formal 
hearing before a panel appointed by the Secretary of the Board of Commissioners 
on Grievances and Discipline. * * * Rule V [of the Rules for the Government of 
the Bar of Ohio] has no provision for the introduction of evidence in the brief 
filed in this court or in the oral argument to this court.  Only in the most 
exceptional circumstances would we accept additional evidence at that late stage 
of the proceedings.”  No such exceptional circumstances are present in this case, 
and we reject the additional evidence. 
Aggravating Factors 
{¶ 15} As aggravating factors, the board found pursuant to stipulations of 
the parties that respondent had exhibited a dishonest or selfish motive, engaged in 
multiple criminal offenses, failed to appear at the board hearing, and has prior 
disciplinary offenses, including an interim felony suspension relating to the 
current charges and an indefinite suspension imposed by this court on May 20, 
2010, for using a client trust account to pay personal expenses, representing a 
decedent’s estate while her license remained  inactive, and receiving attorney fees 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
 
not approved by the probate court.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Cantrell, 125 Ohio 
St.3d 458, 2010-Ohio-2114, 928 N.E.2d 1100. 
{¶ 16} We agree that respondent exhibited a dishonest or selfish motive, 
engaged in multiple criminal offenses, and failed to appear at the board hearing, 
all of which are aggravating factors. BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(b), (d), and (e).  
Although we also agree that respondent’s May 20, 2010 indefinite suspension 
qualifies as a prior disciplinary offense and an aggravating factor, BCGD 
Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(a), we disagree with the board that the interim felony 
suspension relating to the current charges constitutes a prior disciplinary offense.  
Our precedent indicates that a prior interim felony suspension has not heretofore 
been considered as a prior disciplinary offense.  See, e.g., Disciplinary Counsel v. 
Ulinski, 106 Ohio St.3d 53, 2005-Ohio-3673, 831 N.E.2d 425, ¶ 1 and 14 
(acknowledging an interim felony suspension but determining that no prior 
disciplinary offenses had occurred); Disciplinary Counsel v. O’Malley,  126 Ohio 
St.3d 443, 2010-Ohio-3802, 935 N.E.2d 5, ¶ 1 and 10 (same); Disciplinary 
Counsel v. Gittinger, 125 Ohio St.3d 467, 2010-Ohio-1830, 929 N.E.2d 410, ¶ 1 
and 41 (same); Disciplinary Counsel v. Andrews, 124 Ohio St.3d 523, 2010-Ohio-
931, 924 N.E.2d 829, ¶ 1 and 18 (same); Disciplinary Counsel v. Butler, 128 Ohio 
St.3d 319, 2011-Ohio-236, 943 N.E.2d 1025, ¶ 1 and 3 (same). 
{¶ 17} Accordingly, the determination by the board to the contrary 
justifies our modification of its recommended sanction from permanent 
disbarment to indefinite suspension.  Our decision is in accord with others in 
which we have imposed indefinite suspensions.  See, e.g., Disciplinary Counsel v. 
LoDico, 118 Ohio St.3d 316, 2008-Ohio-2465, 888 N.E.2d 1097 (imposing an 
indefinite suspension rather than disbarment for felony and misdemeanor 
convictions even though the attorney had a prior disciplinary record); Greene Cty. 
Bar Assn v. Saunders, 127 Ohio St.3d 241, 2010-Ohio-5708, 938 N.E.2d 352 
January Term, 2011 
7 
 
(imposing indefinite suspension for additional disciplinary infractions when 
attorney had prior felony conviction). 
{¶ 18} Thus, having reviewed the record, considered the aggravating and 
mitigating factors, and reviewed the sanctions imposed for comparable conduct, 
we adopt the board’s findings of fact and conclusions of law, but reject its 
recommendation that respondent be permanently disbarred.  Instead, we hereby 
indefinitely suspend respondent from the practice of law, which suspension shall 
be served consecutively to the indefinite suspension we imposed on May 20, 
2010.  Costs are taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’DONNELL, 
LANZINGER, CUPP, and MCGEE BROWN, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
Jonathan E. Coughlan, Disciplinary Counsel, and Heather L. Hissom, 
Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. 
Doreen Marie Cantrell, pro se. 
______________________