Case Title: Ohio State Bar Assn. v. Wolfson

Citation: 2004-Ohio-3480

Docket Number: 

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2004-07-14T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as Ohio State Bar Assn. v. Wolfson, 102 Ohio St.3d 405, 2004-Ohio-3480.] 
 
 
OHIO STATE BAR ASSOCIATION v. WOLFSON. 
[Cite as Ohio State Bar Assn. v. Wolfson, 102 Ohio St.3d 405, 2004-Ohio-
3480.] 
Attorneys at law – Misconduct – Indefinite suspension with conditions — 
Engaging in illegal conduct involving moral turpitude – Engaging in 
conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation – 
Engaging in conduct prejudicial to administration of justice – Engaging in 
conduct adversely reflecting on fitness to practice law. 
(No. 2004–0060 — Submitted March 15, 2004 — Decided July 14, 2004.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 03-025. 
___________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Richard Evan Wolfson of Portsmouth, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0041470, was admitted to the practice of law in 1989.  On 
December 11, 2002, respondent was found guilty of the third-degree felony of 
tampering with evidence, in violation of R.C. 2921.12(A)(2).  This conviction, 
pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(5)(A)(4), resulted in his suspension from the practice of 
law for an interim period beginning on January 29, 2003.  In re Wolfson, 98 Ohio 
St.3d 1431, 2003-Ohio-341, 782 N.E.2d 588. The conviction also generated 
relator’s complaint that charged respondent with four violations of various 
sections of the Code of Professional Responsibility, specifically DR 1-102(A)(3) 
(prohibiting illegal conduct involving moral turpitude); 1-102(A)(4) (prohibiting 
conduct that involves dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation); 1-
102(A)(5) (prohibiting conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice); 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
and 1-106(A)(6) (barring conduct that adversely reflects on the lawyer’s fitness to 
practice law). 
{¶ 2} The facts surrounding the felony conviction that gave rise to the 
complaint were stipulated by the parties and are additionally set forth in the 
testimony as follows.  Between the ages of 16 and 43, there was, by respondent’s 
admission, “no meaningful period” in which he did not use drugs or alcohol.  
During that time, respondent abused illegal drugs as well as medication that had 
been prescribed for his diagnosed conditions of anxiety, depression, and 
obsessive-compulsive disorder.  He unsuccessfully tried to overcome his 
dependencies on more than one occasion.  Respondent denied ever selling drugs. 
{¶ 3} On Friday, March 22, 2002, a casual acquaintance, Eric Deer, and 
his father, Gerald, showed up at respondent’s apartment at approximately 10:00 in 
the evening.  According to respondent, both men were visibly under the influence 
of alcohol or drugs.  Eric apparently later told respondent that he had taken Xanax 
and was wearing a fentanyl patch, which is a strong opioid used as an alternative 
to morphine. 
{¶ 4} Over the next two to three hours, Eric became increasingly 
unresponsive.  Eventually, Eric passed out, and efforts to awaken him were 
unsuccessful.  But when respondent suggested obtaining medical assistance, 
Gerald, who apparently was on probation and feared police involvement, 
threatened respondent’s wife. 
{¶ 5} Over the next approximately 12 hours, Eric remained comatose but 
was breathing.  At approximately noon, respondent’s landlord learned of the 
situation and insisted that emergency personnel be called.  Gerald fled the scene. 
{¶ 6} While medical personnel assisted Eric, police questioned 
respondent and his wife.  Respondent wrote and signed an unsworn statement that 
Eric had arrived at the apartment that morning.  He immediately recanted his 
January Term, 2004 
3 
statement and confirmed that Eric had arrived the night before.  Respondent then 
permitted the officers to search the apartment. 
{¶ 7} Tragically, despite medical efforts, Eric died at the scene.  On 
April 9, 2002, a two-count criminal indictment against respondent was handed 
down  by the Lawrence County Grand Jury.  Shortly thereafter, the Common 
Pleas Court of Lawrence County granted the state’s motion to nolle count 2 of the 
indictment, a charge of obstructing justice. 
{¶ 8} While awaiting proceedings on the criminal charge, respondent 
voluntarily entered a treatment program at The Marsh House, an in-patient 
recovery facility.  As of his admission on August 28, 2002, respondent has been 
alcohol- and drug-free. 
{¶ 9} On December 11, 2002, respondent pled no contest to a charge of 
tampering with evidence.  He was found guilty and, as part of a plea agreement, 
was sentenced to five years of community control sanctions under intensive 
supervised probation that included serving the first six months at the STAR 
Community Justice Center. 
{¶ 10} Respondent’s participation in the STAR program ended after only 
five months because of respondent’s repeated violation of STAR’s rules and 
regulations.  Respondent admitted some of the violations but denied others.  He 
served the balance of his six-month confinement in the county jail. 
{¶ 11} Respondent testified on all of these facts at his October 23, 2003 
hearing before the panel.  He also testified that he participates in daily—
sometimes twice-daily—Alcoholics Anonymous and/or Narcotics Anonymous 
meetings and is presently secretary of the local Tuesday A.A. group.  He 
maintains frequent contact with his sponsor and also now sponsors two recovering 
individuals himself.  Additionally, respondent submitted three letters to the panel.  
Ed Hughes, executive director of The Counseling Center, Inc., described 
respondent as “enthusiastic and dedicated to those actions that are conducive to 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
effective, restorative recovery.”  Thomas A. Marsh, recovery program coordinator 
at the center, stated that respondent “has followed all treatment recommendations 
and has immersed himself in the twelve step recovering community.”  He noted 
that “while no one can [e]nsure complete success Mr. Wolfson is doing 
everything necessary to live an alcohol/drug free recovering lifestyle.”  Finally, 
respondent offered a letter from a fellow A.A. participant who characterized 
respondent as “an inspiration to all fellow alcoholics.” 
{¶ 12} The evidence adduced at the hearing persuaded the panel that 
respondent had made “a sincere and dedicated effort to extract himself from his 
alcohol and drug dependency, and in the process has endeavored to assist others 
going through the same difficulties,” and this was considered to be a mitigating 
consideration in determining the appropriate sanction.  The panel did not find that 
respondent’s chemical dependency or diagnosed psychiatric conditions qualified 
as mitigating circumstances in and of themselves because there was no evidence 
that they contributed to respondent’s misconduct.  No aggravating factors were 
found. 
{¶ 13} The panel accordingly adopted the stipulated sanction of a two-
year suspension from the practice of law in Ohio recommended by the parties, 
subject to certain conditions, including the following:   
{¶ 14} 1. 
Respondent shall participate actively and meaningfully in 
the lawyer support system provided by the Ohio Lawyers Assistance Program, 
Inc.;  
{¶ 15} 2. 
Respondent shall undergo treatment by a psychiatrist, 
psychologist, or other licensed health-care professional concerning his substance 
dependencies, dysthymic disorder, and obsessive-compulsive disorder; 
{¶ 16} 3. 
Respondent shall take, regularly and as directed, all 
medications that any psychiatrist or medical doctor prescribes for him to treat his 
substance dependencies, dysthymic disorder, and obsessive-compulsive disorder; 
January Term, 2004 
5 
{¶ 17} 4. 
Upon applying for readmission to the practice of law in the 
state of Ohio, respondent shall present evidence that he has fully complied with 
the above requirements. 
{¶ 18} 5. 
Respondent shall present a written report from a 
psychiatrist, psychologist, or other licensed health-care professional stating that 
the treating professional has evaluated and assessed respondent within 30 days of 
the application for readmission, and has concluded, to a reasonable degree of 
medical certainty, (a) that respondent can then emotionally and psychologically 
withstand the pressures and demands associated with the practice of law and (b) 
that none of the conditions or disorders from which respondent then suffers will 
impair his ability to practice law or to meet the demands of the practice of law.  
Respondent shall provide relator a copy of the report upon request. 
{¶ 19} The board adopted the findings of fact and conclusions of law of 
the panel.  In the interest, however, of protecting the public and proving that 
recovery has occurred, the board recommended an indefinite suspension rather 
than a two-year suspension, with credit for time served under the interim 
suspension.  The indefinite suspension was, moreover, to be on the same terms 
specified above by the panel, with a sixth condition imposed by the panel stricken 
as superfluous. 
{¶ 20} We hereby adopt the findings, conclusions, and recommendations 
of the board.  We share the concern of the panel and board that, at present, there is 
no prognosis from any qualified medical professional or alcohol- or chemical-
dependency counselor that the respondent will be able to return to competent and 
ethical professional practice under specified conditions.  For this reason, we find 
an indefinite suspension from the practice of law under the conditions set forth by 
the board, with no credit for time served, to be the more appropriate sanction.  
Respondent is hereby indefinitely suspended from the practice of law in Ohio and, 
in addition to the usual requirements of this sanction and of petitions for 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
reinstatement, see Gov.Bar R. V(8)(E) and X, the following conditions for 
reinstatement shall also apply:   
{¶ 21} 1. 
Respondent shall participate actively and meaningfully in 
the lawyers support system provided by the Ohio Lawyers Assistance Program, 
Inc.;  
{¶ 22} 2. 
Respondent shall undergo treatment by a psychiatrist, 
psychologist, or other licensed health-care professional concerning his substance 
dependencies, dysthymic disorder, and obsessive-compulsive disorder; 
{¶ 23} 3. 
Respondent shall take, regularly and as directed, all 
medications that any psychiatrist or medical doctor prescribes for him to treat his 
substance dependencies, dysthymic disorder, and obsessive-compulsive disorder; 
{¶ 24} 4. 
Upon applying for readmission to the practice of law in the 
state of Ohio, respondent shall present evidence that he has: 
{¶ 25} A. 
Actively and meaningfully participated in the lawyer 
support system provided by the Ohio Lawyers Assistance Program, Inc.; 
{¶ 26} B. 
Undergone 
continuing treatment by a psychiatrist, 
psychologist, or other licensed health-care professional concerning his substance 
dependencies, dysthymic disorder, and obsessive-compulsive disorder;  
{¶ 27} C. 
Taken, regularly and as directed, all medications that any 
psychiatrist or medical doctor prescribed for him to treat his substance 
dependencies, dysthymic disorder, and obsessive-compulsive disorder. 
{¶ 28} 5. 
Upon applying for readmission to the practice of law in the 
state of Ohio, with and as part of the petition for readmission, respondent shall 
present a written report from a psychiatrist, psychologist, or other licensed health-
care professional stating that the treating professional has evaluated and assessed 
respondent within 30 days of the petition for readmission and has concluded, to a 
reasonable degree of psychiatric, psychological, or scientific certainty, (a) that 
respondent can then emotionally and psychologically withstand the pressures and 
January Term, 2004 
7 
demands associated with the practice of law and (b) that none of the conditions or 
disorders from which respondent then suffers will impair his ability to practice 
law or to meet the demands of the practice of law.  Upon request by relator, 
respondent shall provide its representatives a copy of the report. 
{¶ 29} Costs are taxed to the respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, O’CONNOR and 
O’DONNELL, JJ., concur. 
 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, J., concurs in part and dissents in part. 
__________________ 
 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part. 
{¶30} I concur with the majority of the opinion and only dissent as to the 
failure to give respondent credit for time served.  Respondent was suspended on 
an interim basis on January 29, 2003.  Many of his problems had their roots in his 
mental illness and self-medication by use of illegal drugs.  Respondent has been 
drug- and alcohol-free since August 28, 2002, and continues in active 
participation in Alcoholics Anonymous.  The panel recommended a two-year 
suspension with conditions.  The board, to ensure sustained recovery, 
recommended an increase to an indefinite suspension with conditions, with credit 
for time served. 
{¶31} With no explanation as to why we have deviated from the board’s 
recommendation, this court has declined to give credit for time served even 
though respondent was removed under an interim suspension.  This will preclude 
respondent from practicing his profession for an additional two years before he 
can even petition for reinstatement, even though his suspension began in January 
2003 and he has been sober since August 2002.  See Gov.Bar R. V(10)(B)(1).  
We are therefore almost doubling the panel’s recommended punishment and 
increasing even the board’s recommended sanction without citing any basis for 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
8 
doing so. The respondent has not had any additional disciplinary problem, nor has 
he relapsed. 
{¶32} Therefore, I respectfully dissent and would give respondent credit 
for time served back to January 29, 2003, but still require that he meet all other 
conditions for reinstatement. 
___________________ 
 
James T. Kennard; Jones, Day, Reavis & Pogue and  John J. Mueller; and 
Eugene P. Whetzel, for relator. 
 
Michael H. Mearan, for respondent. 
__________________