Case Title: Disciplinary Counsel v. Rolla

Citation: 2002-Ohio-1366

Docket Number: 20011860

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2002-03-27T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Rolla, 95 Ohio St.3d 27, 2002-Ohio-1366.] 
 
 
OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. ROLLA. 
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Rolla (2002), 95 Ohio St.3d 27.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Indefinite suspension — Convictions for 
obstructing justice, forgery, tampering with records, tampering with 
evidence, and dereliction of duty. 
(No. 01-1860 — Submitted November 28, 2001 — Decided March 27, 2002.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 01-45. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam.  On April 9, 2001, relator, Office of Disciplinary Counsel, 
filed a complaint charging respondent, Donald D. Rolla of South Euclid, Ohio, 
Attorney Registration No. 0029833, with violations 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), and 1-102(A)(6) 
(engaging in conduct adversely reflecting on lawyer’s fitness to practice law).  
Respondent failed to answer or otherwise responsively plead to the complaint, and 
relator moved for a default judgment. 
 
Respondent, formerly an assistant prosecuting attorney for Cuyahoga 
County, pled guilty, on November 6, 2000, to two counts of obstructing justice, 
one count of forgery, two counts of tampering with records, one count of 
tampering with evidence, and one count of dereliction of duty.  Dereliction of 
duty is a misdemeanor; the remaining offenses are felonies.  On December 20, 
2000, respondent was sentenced to three years of community control, which 
included serving six months of house arrest, undergoing an evaluation for mental-
health treatment, taking ordered medication, receiving periodic testing, submitting 
to supervision by the intensive special probation unit, and being evaluated for 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
alcohol usage.  Respondent was also fined $2,500 and assessed court costs and a 
supervision fee.  As a result of his convictions, this court suspended respondent 
from the practice of law for an interim period pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(5)(A)(4).  
In re Rolla (2001), 91 Ohio St.3d 1451, 742 N.E.2d 148. 
 
In mitigation, respondent has no prior disciplinary record, and the 
sentencing judge’s conditions suggest that relator suffers from a mental-health 
impairment and substance abuse. 
 
The Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the 
Supreme Court referred this case to a master commissioner.  He recommended 
that we find that respondent violated the previously mentioned Disciplinary 
Rules.  The master commissioner, agreeing with relator, recommended that we 
indefinitely suspend respondent from the practice of law.  The board adopted the 
findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the master commissioner. 
 
After reviewing the record, we adopt the findings, conclusions, and 
recommendation of the board.  Accordingly, we hereby indefinitely suspend 
respondent from the practice of law in Ohio.  Costs are taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
 
Jonathan E. Coughlan, Disciplinary Counsel, and Stacy Solochek 
Beckman, Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. 
__________________