Case Title: Disciplinary Counsel v. Williams

Citation: 2011-Ohio-5163

Docket Number: 2011-1015

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2011-10-13T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
Disciplinary Counsel v. Williams, Slip Opinion No. 2011-Ohio-5163.] 
 
 
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-5163 
DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. WILLIAMS. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as Disciplinary Counsel v. Williams,  
Slip Opinion No. 2011-Ohio-5163.] 
Attorneys—Misconduct—Two life sentences for child rape—Respondent is 
disbarred. 
(No. 2011-1015—Submitted August 8, 2011—Decided October 13, 2011.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 11-011. 
__________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Joseph Norman Williams, who is currently 
incarcerated at the Mansfield Correctional Institution, Attorney Registration No. 
0037392, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1986. 
{¶ 2} We suspended Williams from the practice of law in December 
2003 for failing to meet the continuing legal education (“CLE”) requirements of 
Gov.Bar X, and in December 2005 for failing to comply with attorney-registration 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
requirements.  In re Continuing Legal Edn. Suspension of Williams, 100 Ohio 
St.3d 1516, 2003-Ohio-6494, 800 N.E.2d 34; In re Attorney Registration 
Suspension of Williams, 107 Ohio St.3d 1431, 2005-Ohio-6408, 838 N.E.2d 671.  
Those suspensions remain in effect.1   
{¶ 3} On October 12, 2010, we imposed an interim felony suspension on 
Williams and referred the matter to Disciplinary Counsel for investigation and 
commencement of disciplinary proceedings.  In re Williams, 126 Ohio St.3d 
1594, 2010-Ohio-4938, 935 N.E.2d 42.  As a result of that investigation, relator 
has filed a complaint alleging that Williams should be permanently disbarred 
from the practice of law in Ohio based upon his felony convictions for rape, for 
which he is currently serving concurrent life sentences. 
{¶ 4} Although Williams responded to one of relator’s letters of inquiry, 
maintaining that he was innocent of the crimes for which he was convicted, he has 
not filed an answer or otherwise participated in this disciplinary action.  Relator 
moved for default pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(6)(F).  A master commissioner 
appointed by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline reviewed 
the evidence, made  findings of misconduct and conclusions of law, and 
recommended that respondent be permanently disbarred from the practice of law 
in Ohio, all of which the board adopted.  We adopt the board’s report and 
permanently disbar respondent. 
Misconduct 
{¶ 5} The evidence demonstrates that in June 2008, Williams was 
indicted on three counts of raping his seven-year-old nephew and one count of 
kidnapping him with a sexual motivation, all first-degree felonies.  On December 
30, 2008, judgment of conviction was entered on all charges.  The kidnapping 
                                                 
1 Pursuant to Gov.Bar R. X(5)(C), however, a sanction imposed for failure to comply with the 
CLE requirements of Gov.Bar. X shall not be considered in the imposition of a sanction for 
attorney misconduct. 
January Term, 2011 
3 
 
conviction, however, merged with the three rape convictions, for which Williams 
received concurrent life sentences.  One of the rape convictions and its 
corresponding life sentence were later vacated on appeal.  State v. Williams, 
Cuyahoga App. No. 92714, 2010-Ohio-70, ¶ 57. 
{¶ 6} The master commissioner and board found that respondent’s 
conduct violated DR 1-102(A)(3) (prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in illegal 
conduct involving moral turpitude) and 1-102(A)(6) (prohibiting a lawyer from 
engaging in conduct that adversely reflects on the lawyer’s fitness to practice 
law).2  
{¶ 7} We adopt these findings of fact and misconduct. 
Sanction 
{¶ 8} When imposing sanctions for attorney misconduct, we consider 
relevant factors, including the ethical duties that the lawyer violated and the 
sanctions imposed in similar cases.  Stark Cty. Bar Assn. v. Buttacavoli, 96 Ohio 
St.3d 424, 2002-Ohio-4743, 775 N.E.2d 818, ¶ 16.  In making a final 
determination, we also weigh evidence of the aggravating and mitigating factors 
listed in Section 10(B) of the Rules and Regulations Governing Procedure on 
Complaints and Hearings Before the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline (“BCGD Proc.Reg.”).  Disciplinary Counsel v. Broeren, 115 Ohio 
St.3d 473, 2007-Ohio-5251, 875 N.E.2d 935, ¶ 21.   
{¶ 9} The board found that at least four of the nine aggravating factors 
set forth in BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1) are present here, including a pattern of 
misconduct, multiple offenses, a refusal to acknowledge the wrongful nature of 
the conduct, and the vulnerability and resulting harm to the victim.  See BCGD 
Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(c), (d), (g), and (h).  We also find that respondent acted with a 
selfish motive and failed to cooperate in the disciplinary process.  See BCGD 
                                                 
2 Because respondent’s conduct occurred before February 1, 2007, the effective date of the rules of 
Professional Conduct, the Code of Professional Responsibility applies. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(b) and (e).  In contrast, the only mitigating factor found by the 
board is that other penalties have been imposed.  See BCGD Proc.Reg. 
10(B)(2)(f). 
{¶ 10} Relator seeks and the board recommends that Williams be 
permanently disbarred from the practice of law in Ohio.  “[P]ermanent disbarment 
is an appropriate sanction for conduct that violates DR 1-102 and results in a 
felony conviction.”  Disciplinary Counsel v. Gallagher (1998), 82 Ohio St.3d 51, 
52, 693 N.E.2d 1078.  Thus, we have permanently disbarred attorneys who have 
been convicted of other serious crimes involving moral turpitude, including 
reckless homicide, attempted murder, and murder.  See Disciplinary Counsel v. 
Zemba,  97 Ohio St.3d 489, 2002-Ohio-6725,  780 N.E.2d 576 (disbarring 
attorney convicted of reckless homicide after a 17-month old child died in her 
care); Disciplinary Counsel v. Rocker (1999), 85 Ohio St.3d 397, 709 N.E.2d 113 
(disbarring attorney convicted of aggravated murder of his wife); Columbus Bar 
Assn. v. Riebel (1990), 51 Ohio St.3d 106, 554 N.E.2d 1318 (disbarring attorney 
convicted of several crimes, including five counts of attempted murder with a 
deadly weapon); Bar Assn. of Greater Cleveland v. Steele (1981), 65 Ohio St.2d 
1, 19 O.O.3d 120, 417 N.E.2d 104 (disbarring an attorney convicted of first-
degree murder of his wife). 
{¶ 11} We have found that “permanent disbarment is the only appropriate 
sanction for an attorney convicted of murder.” Rocker, 85 Ohio St.3d 397, 709 
N.E.2d 113. Likewise, we conclude that permanent disbarment is the only 
appropriate sanction for an attorney convicted of raping a child. 
{¶ 12} Accordingly, Joseph Norman Williams is permanently disbarred 
from the practice of law in Ohio. 
{¶ 13} Costs are taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
January Term, 2011 
5 
 
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. 
______________________