Case Title: Disciplinary Counsel v. Cosgrove

Citation: 2021-Ohio-2188

Docket Number: 2021-0208

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2021-06-30T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
Disciplinary Counsel v. Cosgrove, Slip Opinion No. 2021-Ohio-2188.] 
 
 
 
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. 2021-OHIO-2188 
DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. COSGROVE. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as Disciplinary Counsel v. Cosgrove, Slip Opinion No.  
2021-Ohio-2188.] 
Attorneys—Misconduct—Violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct—
Attempted unlawful sexual conduct with a minor—Indefinite suspension 
with no credit for time served under interim felony suspension. 
(No. 2021-0208—Submitted March 31, 2021—Decided June 30, 2021.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Professional Conduct of the Supreme 
Court, No. 2020-044. 
______________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Michael Francis Cosgrove, of Cleveland Heights, Ohio, 
Attorney Registration No. 0072795, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 
2000.  On July 9, 2019, we suspended him from the practice of law on an interim 
basis following his conviction on a fourth-degree-felony count of attempted 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
2
unlawful sexual conduct with a minor.  In re Cosgrove, 156 Ohio St.3d 1350, 
2019-Ohio-2802, 130 N.E.3d 316. 
{¶ 2} In an August 11, 2020 complaint, relator, disciplinary counsel, 
alleged that the conduct underlying Cosgrove’s criminal conviction constitutes an 
illegal act that adversely reflects on his honesty, trustworthiness, and fitness to 
practice law. 
{¶ 3} The parties submitted stipulations of fact and misconduct and agreed 
that Cosgrove should be indefinitely suspended from the practice of law.  After 
considering those stipulations and 12 stipulated exhibits and hearing Cosgrove’s 
testimony, a three-member panel of the Board of Professional Conduct issued a 
report finding that he had committed the charged misconduct and recommending 
that he be indefinitely suspended from the practice of law with no credit for the 
time served under his interim suspension.  The board adopted the findings and 
recommendation of the panel, and no objections have been filed. 
{¶ 4} We adopt the board’s findings of misconduct and recommended 
sanction. 
Stipulated Facts and Misconduct 
{¶ 5} In November 2018, Cosgrove entered an online chatroom and began 
a conversation with someone he believed to be a 15-year-old girl.  During that 
conversation, he discussed sexual matters, solicited the person he believed to be a 
minor to participate in sexual activity, and made arrangements to meet with the 
person.  After the conversation ended, Cosgrove drove to a park where he had 
arranged to meet with the person he believed to be a minor and discovered that he 
had been communicating with a law-enforcement officer who was posing as a 15-
year-old girl.  Cosgrove was arrested and later indicted on charges of attempted 
unlawful sexual conduct with a minor, importuning, and possession of criminal 
tools. 
January Term, 2021 
 
3
{¶ 6} In April 2019, in the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas, 
Cosgrove pleaded guilty to attempted unlawful sexual contact with a minor.  The 
state dismissed the remaining charges.  On May 30, 2019, the court found 
Cosgrove to be a Tier II sex offender and ordered him to forfeit his iPhone and 
submit a DNA specimen.  The court then sentenced him to a two-year term of 
community control that required him to (1) abide by all rules of the probation 
department, (2) report as directed by his probation officer, (3) submit to a sex-
offender 
assessment, 
(4) successfully 
complete 
sex-offender 
counseling, 
(5) submit to polygraph examinations, (6) comply with all recommendations of 
his treatment team, and (7) submit to random drug testing.  In addition, the court 
ordered Cosgrove to be screened for placement into the NorthWest Community 
Corrections Center and, if eligible, to complete the community-based 
correctional-facility program.  Further, he was ordered to continue treatment and 
follow all aftercare recommendations upon his release.  At his disciplinary 
hearing, Cosgrove testified that he ultimately served 60 days in the community-
based correctional-facility program. 
{¶ 7} The parties stipulated and the board found that Cosgrove’s conduct 
violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(b) (prohibiting a lawyer from committing an illegal act 
that reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty or trustworthiness) and 8.4(h) 
(prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct that adversely reflects on the 
lawyer’s fitness to practice law).  We accept these findings and agree that 
Cosgrove’s conduct was sufficiently egregious to constitute a separate violation of 
Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(h).  See Disciplinary Counsel v. Bricker, 137 Ohio St.3d 35, 
2013-Ohio-3998, 997 N.E.2d 500, ¶ 21. 
Sanction 
{¶ 8} When imposing sanctions for attorney misconduct, we consider all 
relevant factors, including the ethical duties that the lawyer violated, the 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
4
aggravating and mitigating factors listed in Gov.Bar R. V(13), and the sanctions 
imposed in similar cases. 
{¶ 9} As aggravating factors, the parties and the board cited Cosgrove’s 
dishonest and selfish motive and the vulnerability of his intended victim.  See 
Gov.Bar R. V(13)(B)(2) and (8).  As for mitigating factors, the board concurred 
with the parties’ stipulations that Cosgrove (1) does not have a history of prior 
discipline, (2) made full and free disclosure to the board and demonstrated a 
cooperative attitude toward the disciplinary proceedings, (3) submitted evidence 
of his good character and reputation, (4) established the existence of a qualifying 
mental disorder, and (5) participated in other interim rehabilitation.  See Gov.Bar 
R. V(13)(C)(1), (4), (5), (7), and (8).  In addition to completing his community-
based correctional-facility program, Cosgrove entered into a three-year contract 
with the Ohio Lawyers Assistance Program and was in full compliance with that 
contract near the time of his disciplinary hearing. 
{¶ 10} The board recommends that we adopt the parties’ stipulated 
sanction of an indefinite suspension with no credit for time Cosgrove has served 
under his interim felony suspension.  In support of that sanction, the board cites 
three cases in which we have imposed the same sanction on other attorneys 
convicted of similar crimes for attempting to arrange sexual encounters with 
minors.  See Disciplinary Counsel v. Schwarz, 160 Ohio St.3d 194, 2020-Ohio-
1542, 155 N.E.3d 830 (attorney convicted of importuning for exchanging sexually 
charged text messages and attempting to meet with an undercover law-
enforcement officer posing as a 15-year-old boy); Disciplinary Counsel v. 
Goldblatt, 118 Ohio St.3d 310, 2008-Ohio-2458, 888 N.E.2d 1091 (attorney 
convicted of compelling prostitution and possessing criminal tools after he 
attempted to arrange a sexual encounter with an undercover FBI agent posing as a 
pimp who promised to procure the attorney an underage girl in exchange for 
$200); and Disciplinary Counsel v. Andrews, 124 Ohio St.3d 523, 2010-Ohio-
January Term, 2021 
 
5
931, 924 N.E.2d 829 (attorney convicted of attempted tampering with evidence 
and a misdemeanor count of attempted importuning after he engaged in online 
conversations soliciting sexual activity from an adult posing as a 13-year-old girl). 
{¶ 11} After independently reviewing the record in this case, we adopt the 
board’s findings of misconduct and agree that an indefinite suspension with no 
credit for time served under our interim suspension order is the appropriate 
sanction in this case.  As we stated in Schwarz and Goldblatt, “ ‘an indefinite 
suspension will help protect the public, deter other lawyers from similar 
wrongdoing, and preserve the public’s trust in the legal profession.’ ”  Schwarz at 
¶ 12, quoting Goldblatt at ¶ 30. 
{¶ 12} The board also recommends that we condition Cosgrove’s 
reinstatement to the practice of law on proof that he is in compliance with the 
terms of his court-ordered community control.  However, we find that this 
condition is subsumed into Gov.Bar R. V(25)(D)(2), which requires an attorney 
seeking reinstatement to the practice of law prior to completing a term of 
probation, community control, intervention in lieu of conviction, or any sanction 
imposed as part of a sentence for a felony conviction to submit a petition that 
includes (1) an affidavit from the trial judge as evidence that the attorney is in 
compliance with all terms and conditions of any criminal sanctions, to include 
community control, and (2) facts to establish by clear and convincing evidence 
that the attorney should be reinstated to the practice of law while subject to any of 
those sanctions. 
Conclusion 
{¶ 13} Accordingly, Michael Francis Cosgrove is indefinitely suspended 
from the practice of law in Ohio with no credit for the time served under the 
interim felony suspension imposed on July 9, 2019.  Costs are taxed to Cosgrove. 
Judgment accordingly. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
6
O’CONNOR, C.J., and KENNEDY, FISCHER, DEWINE, DONNELLY, STEWART, 
and BRUNNER, JJ., concur. 
_________________ 
Joseph M. Caligiuri, Disciplinary Counsel, and Audrey E. Varwig, 
Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. 
Michael Francis Cosgrove, pro se. 
_________________