Case Title: Ohio State Bar Assn. v. Johnson

Citation: 2002-Ohio-3998

Docket Number: 

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2002-08-21T00:00:00Z

Document:
OHIO STATE BAR ASSOCIATION v. JOHNSON. 
[Cite as Ohio State Bar Assn. v. Johnson, 96 Ohio St.3d 192, 2002-Ohio-3998.] 
Attorneys at law - Misconduct - Indefinite suspension - Committing extortion while 
serving as a state senator - Conviction for interfering with commerce by 
extortion under color of official right in violation of Section 1951, Title 18, 
U.S.Code. 
(No. 2001-2204 - Submitted March 12, 2002 - Decided August 21, 2002.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of 
the Supreme Court, No. 01-05. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶1} 
We must decide in this case how to appropriately sanction an attorney who 
committed extortion while serving as a state senator.  The Board of Commissioners on 
Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court recommended that respondent, Jeffery 
D. Johnson of Cleveland, Ohio, Attorney Registration No. 0025058, be permanently 
disbarred from the practice of law in Ohio after finding him in violation of DR 1-
102(A)(3) (engaging in illegal conduct involving moral turpitude), 1-102(A)(4) (engaging 
in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation), 1-102(A)(5) 
(engaging in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice), and 1-102(A)(6) 
(engaging in conduct that adversely reflects on a lawyer’s fitness to practice law).  
However, because we believe that respondent may, with committed efforts to rehabilitate, 
someday be capable of contributing professionally to the community again, we have 
decided to suspend respondent indefinitely from the practice of law. 
{¶2} 
Respondent served in the Ohio Senate from 1990 until 1999.  In 1999, he 
was convicted of three counts of interfering with commerce by extortion under color of 
official right in violation of Section 1951, Title 18, U.S.Code (the “Hobbs Act”).  He was 
sentenced to 15 months’ incarceration, one year of supervised release, 250 hours of 
community service, and payment of a small assessment.  His convictions were affirmed 
in United States v. Johnson (Sept. 5, 2000), C.A. 6 No. 99-3259, unreported, 2000 WL 
1290317. 
{¶3} 
Respondent was convicted of these crimes because in his capacity as a 
state senator, he induced various grocers and others to either give money to his election 
campaigns or to lend him money as a quid pro quo for his efforts on their behalf before 
government agencies.  In exchange for payoffs based loosely on the value of the benefit 
to the contributor, respondent helped these constituents obtain lottery licenses, Women, 
Infants, and Children Program grocery contracts, liquor permits, and other 
governmentally regulated privileges.  Respondent was caught and stopped largely 
because one of the grocers cooperated in an FBI investigation of his activities. 
{¶4} 
We suspended respondent from the practice of law for an interim period 
on September 15, 2000, after receiving a certified copy of the judgment entry of his 
conviction.  In re Johnson (2000), 90 Ohio St.3d 1410, 735 N.E.2d 451. 
{¶5} 
On February 5, 2001, relator, Ohio State Bar Association, filed a 
complaint charging that respondent’s conviction and the conduct underlying it violated 
the Code of Professional Responsibility.  A panel of the board heard the cause, found the 
cited misconduct, and recommended that respondent be permanently disbarred.  The 
board adopted the panel’s findings, conclusions, and recommended sanction. 
{¶6} 
We concur in the board’s findings and conclusion that respondent violated 
DR 1-102(A)(3), 1-102(A)(4), 1-102(A)(5), and 1-102(A)(6).  We also acknowledge that 
the board’s recommendation in this case is based firmly on precedent establishing that 
permanent disbarment is the accepted sanction when attorneys in public office commit 
extortion.  Disciplinary Counsel v. DiCarlantonio (1994), 68 Ohio St.3d 479, 628 N.E.2d 
1355; Disciplinary Counsel v. Mosely (1994), 69 Ohio St.3d 401, 632 N.E.2d 1287.  But 
after reviewing the testimony, exhibits, and arguments of counsel, we are persuaded that 
the mitigation evidence justifies a sanction less severe than permanent disbarment. 
{¶7} 
In executing our constitutional responsibility to oversee the practice of law 
in this state, our duty requires us to do more than just protect the public from those 
ethically unfit to represent them.  We must also be careful not to deprive the public of 
those who, through sufficient rehabilitation, may be able to recover their ethical 
orientation and serve competently in a professional capacity.  Thus, when an attorney has 
committed misdeeds that otherwise might have warranted disbarment, we have 
considered the attorney’s community service as evidence that he might be able to reform 
and have imposed an indefinite suspension from the practice of law.  Columbus Bar Assn. 
v. Elsass (1999), 86 Ohio St.3d 195, 713 N.E.2d 421.  In fact, the severity of our 
disciplinary measures is often tempered in consideration of an attorney’s previously 
unblemished professional record and good public works.  See Columbus Bar Assn. v. 
Culbreath (2000), 88 Ohio St.3d 271, 732, N.E.2d 985 (six-month suspension stayed with 
probation and mentoring ordered based on community leader’s service) and Disciplinary 
Counsel v. Suarez (1998), 84 Ohio St.3d 4, 701 N.E.2d 683 (no actual suspension where 
attorney had no prior disciplinary infractions and dedicated her professional services to 
the community). 
{¶8} 
The facts considered mitigating by the board were the absence of any prior 
instances of professional discipline against respondent, his cooperation in this 
disciplinary process, and numerous favorable character references, many from 
professional and community leaders.  To this we add the fact that respondent at one time 
effectively served the community.  Even in sentencing respondent, United States District 
Court Judge Kathleen M. O’Malley acknowledged letters from supporters documenting 
his contributions, and that support, in combination with the relatively low degree of 
culpability she assessed, caused her to significantly depart from sentencing guidelines 
and reduce his sentence dramatically. 
{¶9} 
Respondent has unquestionably violated his oath of public office and 
betrayed the public trust.  His misconduct constitutes egregious violations of the Code of 
Professional Responsibility.  But he may someday be able to demonstrate the ethical 
conduct that Ohio attorneys must practice.  Because this possibility exists, we find the 
sanction of indefinite suspension to be appropriate.  Accordingly, we order that 
respondent be suspended indefinitely from the practice of law.  Costs are taxed to 
respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and LUNDBERG 
STRATTON, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
 
John J. Mueller and Eugene P. Whetzel, for relator. 
 
Ben E. Espy, for respondent. 
__________________