Case Title: Disciplinary Counsel v. White

Citation: 2006-Ohio-2709

Docket Number: 20052440

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2006-06-14T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. White, 109 Ohio St.3d 402, 2006-Ohio-2709.] 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. WHITE. 
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. White, 109 Ohio St.3d 402, 2006-Ohio-2709.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Conduct involving moral turpitude — Conduct 
adversely reflecting on fitness to practice law — Conviction on felony 
drug offense — Disbarment. 
(No. 2005-2440 — Submitted February 22, 2006 — Decided June 14, 2006.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 05-060. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, David Lee White II of McConnelsville, Ohio, 
Attorney Registration No. 0030927, was admitted to the Ohio bar in 1985. 
{¶ 2} On August 17, 2005, we indefinitely suspended respondent for 
violating DR 1-102(A)(3) (barring illegal conduct involving moral turpitude), 1-
102(A)(4) (barring an attorney from engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, 
fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation), 1-102(A)(5) (barring conduct that is 
prejudicial to the administration of justice), 1-102(A)(6) (barring conduct that 
adversely reflects on an attorney’s fitness to practice law), 2-106(A) (barring a 
clearly excessive fee), and 6-101(A)(3) (barring neglect of an entrusted legal 
matter), as well as Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) (requiring attorneys to cooperate with and 
assist in any disciplinary investigation).  Disciplinary Counsel v. White, 106 Ohio 
St.3d 108, 2005-Ohio-3957, 832 N.E.2d 51. 
{¶ 3} As we explained in that decision, respondent was charged with a 
felony drug offense in 2003.  Id. at ¶ 11.  After he pleaded guilty in June 2004 to 
the criminal charge of “permitting drug abuse” in violation of R.C. 2925.13(C)(3), 
a fifth-degree felony, the Morgan County Common Pleas Court granted his 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
motion for intervention in lieu of conviction and stayed all pending proceedings in 
his criminal case.  Id. at ¶ 12. 
{¶ 4} That was where the matter stood in September 2004 when relator, 
Disciplinary Counsel, initiated the disciplinary action that led us to indefinitely 
suspend respondent in August 2005.  Respondent’s misconduct committed after 
September 2004 has now given rise to additional disciplinary charges. 
{¶ 5} Relator filed a complaint charging respondent with additional 
professional misconduct on June 13, 2005.  Attempts to serve respondent by 
certified mail were unsuccessful, and the complaint was served on the Clerk of the 
Supreme Court pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(11)(B).  Respondent did not answer, 
and relator moved for default under Gov.Bar R. V(6)(F).  A master commissioner 
appointed by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline granted 
the motion and made findings of fact, conclusions of law, and a recommendation, 
all of which the board adopted. 
Misconduct 
{¶ 6} When the Morgan County Common Pleas Court stayed the 
criminal proceedings against respondent in June 2004, that court ordered him to 
refrain from possessing, using, or distributing any drug of abuse other than 
prescription medications.  Respondent violated the order when he tested positive 
for cocaine use in February 2005.  Accordingly, in March 2005, the court lifted 
the stay previously imposed in respondent’s criminal case and entered a finding of 
guilty on the felony drug charge to which he had earlier pleaded guilty.  The court 
also ordered respondent to serve 11 months in prison for his offense. 
{¶ 7} The master commissioner assigned to review these additional 
charges of professional misconduct against respondent concluded that he had 
violated DR 1-102(A)(3) and 1-102(A)(6).  We agree with that finding. 
Sanction 
January Term, 2006 
3 
{¶ 8} In recommending a sanction for this misconduct, the board 
considered the aggravating and mitigating factors listed in 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.”).  
The board cited several aggravating factors, including respondent’s prior 
disciplinary offenses, his pattern of misconduct dating to a prior drug charge in 
1997, and his multiple offenses.  BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(a), (c), and (d).  In 
mitigation, the master commissioner and the board cited the “suggestion of 
chemical dependency” in the record and the imposition of a criminal sentence for 
the misconduct.  BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(f) and (g). 
{¶ 9} Relator recommended that respondent be permanently disbarred.  
The master commissioner and the board accepted that recommendation and now 
urge the court to disbar respondent. 
{¶ 10} We agree with the board’s recommendation.  Respondent’s earlier 
misconduct resulted in an indefinite suspension.  Disciplinary Counsel v. White, 
106 Ohio St.3d 108, 2005-Ohio-3957, 832 N.E.2d 51.  Respondent’s additional 
professional misconduct and his felony conviction now compel his permanent 
disbarment. 
{¶ 11} In other disciplinary cases, we have disbarred attorneys who, like 
respondent, have committed violations of DR 1-102(A) and have been convicted 
of felony offenses.  See, e.g., Disciplinary Counsel v. Stern, 106 Ohio St.3d 266, 
2005-Ohio-4804, 834 N.E.2d 351; Disciplinary Counsel v. Ulinski, 106 Ohio 
St.3d 53, 2005-Ohio-3673, 831 N.E.2d 425; Disciplinary Counsel v. Bein, 105 
Ohio St.3d 62, 2004-Ohio-7012, 822 N.E.2d 358.  Although we have imposed 
lesser sanctions on some attorneys convicted of felonies, we have done so where 
more evidence was offered in mitigation than has been offered in this case.  See, 
e.g., Akron Bar Assn. v. Mudrick (2001), 93 Ohio St.3d 621, 758 N.E.2d 176 (an 
indefinite suspension was imposed on an attorney who showed remorse for his 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
actions, was suffering from depression and an anxiety disorder that warranted 
psychiatric attention, and who had not previously been disciplined for 
professional misconduct); Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Holcombe (2001), 93 Ohio 
St.3d 141, 753 N.E.2d 176 (an indefinite suspension was imposed on an attorney 
who had not previously been suspended from the practice of law, had already 
served a 17-month prison sentence and had been released from prison after 
received counseling there, was employed at a restaurant, and was regularly 
attending Alcoholics Anonymous meetings). 
{¶ 12} To be sure, we have explained that “[g]enerally, we do temper our 
decision where substance abuse is involved and the respondent has demonstrated 
a commitment to sobriety.”  (Emphasis added.)  Disciplinary Counsel v. 
Gallagher (1998), 82 Ohio St.3d 51, 53, 693 N.E.2d 1078.  No such commitment 
is evident on the part of respondent, however.  While criminal proceedings were 
stayed against him, he tested positive for cocaine use.  Respondent’s drug use led 
to his felony conviction, and, as we noted in his earlier disciplinary case, he did 
not sign a contract with the Ohio Lawyers Assistance Program.  White, 106 Ohio 
St.3d 108, 2005-Ohio-3957, 832 N.E.2d 51, ¶ 13. 
{¶ 13} Accordingly, respondent is hereby permanently disbarred from the 
practice of law in Ohio.  Costs are taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., RESNICK, PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’CONNOR, 
O’DONNELL and LANZINGER, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
 
Jonathan E. Coughlan, Disciplinary Counsel, and Stacy Solochek 
Beckman, Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. 
______________________