Case Title: Disciplinary Counsel v. Connor

Citation: 2004-Ohio-6902

Docket Number: 20041761

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2004-12-22T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Connor, 105 Ohio St.3d 100, 2004-Ohio-6902.] 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. CONNOR. 
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Connor, 105 Ohio St.3d 100, 2004-Ohio-6902.] 
Judges — Misconduct — Six-month suspension, stayed on condition — Engaging 
in conduct that adversely reflects on the judge’s fitness — Failing to 
comply with the law — Failing to act in a manner that promotes public 
confidence in the integrity of the judiciary. 
(No. 2004-1761 — Submitted November 30, 2004 — Decided December 22, 
2004.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 04-027. 
___________________ 
 
PER CURIAM. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, John Aloysius Connor of Columbus, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0013324, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1966.  
He was elected to the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas Court in 
November 1992, and since January 1993, he has continuously served in that 
capacity.  On June 7, 2004, relator, Disciplinary Counsel, charged respondent 
with violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct and the Code of Professional 
Responsibility. 
{¶ 2} A panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline heard the cause and made findings of misconduct and a 
recommendation.  The panel’s findings were based, in part, on the parties’ 
stipulations, and the panel’s recommendation took into account stipulated 
mitigating factors and testimonials about respondent’s character.  The board 
adopted the panel’s findings and recommendation. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
Misconduct 
{¶ 3} Respondent was stopped by a police officer on December 15, 
2002, while driving an automobile in Palm Beach County, Florida.  He was under 
the influence of alcohol at the time.  That case was resolved in February 2004, 
when respondent pleaded guilty to driving while under the influence of alcohol, a 
misdemeanor offense.  Respondent was sentenced to ten days in jail, with credit 
for each day he spent in an inpatient program for alcohol abuse, and placed on 
probation for one year. 
{¶ 4} This incident was respondent’s second drunk-driving conviction in 
five years.  He was previously convicted in January 2000 of operating a motor 
vehicle while intoxicated, in Bexley, Ohio, a violation of R.C. 4511.19(A)(1).  As 
a result of that conviction, the Franklin County Municipal Court ordered 
respondent to undergo a three-day inpatient treatment program, suspended his 
driver’s license for 140 days, and fined him $300. 
{¶ 5} Although no disciplinary action resulted from respondent’s 
January 2000 conviction, he had a disciplinary record stemming from earlier 
alcohol-related incidents: On June 12, 1985, respondent was publicly reprimanded 
for violating DR 1-102(A)(6) (barring conduct that adversely reflects on a 
lawyer’s fitness to practice law) after he was arrested in 1984 for operating a 
motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol and later convicted of 
permitting drug abuse, a misdemeanor offense.  Following the disciplinary 
proceeding, respondent also pleaded guilty to reckless operation. 
{¶ 6} Consistent with the parties’ stipulations, the board found on these 
facts that respondent had again violated DR 1-102(A)(6) and had also violated 
Canons 2 (a judge shall respect and comply with the law and shall act at all times 
in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of 
the judiciary) and 4 (a judge shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of 
impropriety in all of the judge’s activities) of the Code of Judicial Conduct. 
January Term, 2004 
3 
Sanction 
{¶ 7} In considering the aggravating and mitigating factors of 
respondent’s case, see Section 10 of the Rules and Regulations Governing 
Procedure on Complaints and Hearings Before the Board of Commissioners on 
Grievances and Discipline, the board found that respondent’s misconduct did not 
result from a dishonest or selfish motive and that he had cooperated fully during 
the disciplinary proceedings.  The board also considered 29 letters from 
respondent’s colleagues, former clients, and friends, all commending respondent’s 
integrity, competence, and commitment to the judicial system. 
{¶ 8} At the panel hearing, respondent provided compelling testimony 
about his family members’ struggles with alcohol and chemical dependency, 
including his mother’s, two of his siblings’, and his own.  In his family, 
respondent explained, a man was measured by how much alcohol he could drink 
without showing deleterious effects. 
{¶ 9} Since his last conviction, respondent has dedicated himself to 
recovery from his disease.  In March 2003, respondent signed a Lawyers Support 
System Recovery Contract under the auspices of the Ohio Lawyers Assistance 
Program (“OLAP”).  Scott Mote, Executive Director of OLAP, testified before 
the panel about respondent’s commitment to and progress in this treatment 
program.  Mote assured the panel that respondent has completely complied with 
the terms of his contract. 
{¶ 10} Also testifying in respondent’s behalf, three fellow judges spoke of 
their admiration and respect for respondent’s work ethic, legal knowledge, 
judicial temperament, and sense of fair play.  Several attorneys who regularly 
practiced before respondent echoed this sentiment.  There was no evidence that 
respondent’s alcoholism had compromised the performance of his duties on the 
bench. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
{¶ 11} The board was impressed with the evidence of respondent’s 
recovery efforts and his character but was also concerned that this case 
represented respondent’s third alcohol-related incident.  Respondent was publicly 
reprimanded in 1985 after having been arrested for driving under the influence.  
In 2000, he was convicted of driving while intoxicated.  And in 2004, respondent 
was convicted of driving while intoxicated for the December 2002 incident in 
Florida. 
{¶ 12} Respondent claimed that before his arrest in Florida, he was in 
denial about his alcoholism.  He confessed that although he had previously 
participated in Alcoholics Anonymous (“AA”) and had even abstained from 
alcohol for nearly two years, he had never been convinced that he was an 
alcoholic.  As a result, respondent eventually relapsed, first drinking privately and 
then publicly. 
{¶ 13} Respondent has since realized that he is an alcoholic, not just a 
problem drinker, and that he can never consume alcohol again.  In conformity 
with the AA program, however, he sustains his recovery by renewing his promise 
to abstain each day, rather than promising to abstain forever.  Respondent has also 
become very active in helping others manage and, to the extent possible, 
overcome their alcoholism. 
{¶ 14} The board found that in 2003, respondent completed a respected 
inpatient treatment regimen in Maryland and has since strictly complied with his 
after-care program.  The board also accepted respondent’s assurance that he has 
reconciled himself to his alcoholism, learned how to deal with it, and made a 
sincere commitment to the OLAP program, including abstinence since December 
2002.  The board concluded that as of the hearing date, respondent appeared to 
have undertaken every action he could to avoid alcohol-related incidents in the 
future. 
January Term, 2004 
5 
{¶ 15} For his misconduct, relator recommended that respondent be 
suspended from the practice of law for six months, all stayed.  Respondent 
recommended that he receive no sanction or, at most, a public reprimand.  
Adopting the panel’s recommendation, the board recommended that respondent 
receive a six-month suspension, with the entire suspension stayed on the condition 
that he comply with the terms of his OLAP contract until March 26, 2006, which 
extends his current two-year contract, executed on March 26, 2003, for one year. 
{¶ 16} We agree that respondent violated DR 1-102(A)(6) and Canons 2 
and 4 of the Code of Judicial Conduct, as found by the board.  We also find the 
recommended sanction to be appropriate. 
{¶ 17} “One of the fundamental tenets of the professional responsibility of 
a lawyer is that he should maintain a degree of personal and professional integrity 
that meets the highest standard.  The integrity of the profession can be maintained 
only if the conduct of the individual attorney is above reproach.  He should refrain 
from any illegal conduct.  Anything short of this lessens public confidence in the 
legal profession—because obedience to the law exemplifies respect for the law.”  
Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Stein (1972), 29 Ohio St.2d 77, 81, 58 O.O.2d 151, 278 
N.E.2d 670. 
{¶ 18} Thus, we have, historically, imposed discipline for an attorney’s 
criminal conduct, finding a violation of DR 1-102(A)(6).  See, e.g., Disciplinary 
Counsel v. Michaels (1988), 38 Ohio St.3d 248, 527 N.E.2d 299 (lawyer’s 
convictions of involuntary manslaughter and driving under the influence of 
alcohol warranted indefinite suspension from the practice of law); and 
Disciplinary Counsel v. Norris (1996), 76 Ohio St.3d 93, 666 N.E.2d 1087 
(county prosecutor’s misdemeanor conviction for possession of cocaine warranted 
a two-year suspension, with one year stayed on conditions).  Members of the 
judiciary have an even greater duty to obey the law, and the breach of that duty 
has been met with the full measure of our disciplinary authority.  Disciplinary 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
Counsel v. Gallagher (1998), 82 Ohio St.3d 51, 693 N.E.2d 1078 (attorney's plea 
of guilty to charge of distributing cocaine warranted disbarment when attorney 
had been holding judicial office at time of his arrest); and Disciplinary Counsel v. 
Mosely (1994), 69 Ohio St.3d 401, 632 N.E.2d 1287 (judicial misconduct 
involving extortion, receiving kickbacks, grand theft, and theft in office warranted 
disbarment). 
{¶ 19} We sometimes temper the sanction, however, when illegal acts 
emanate from alcohol or chemical addictions and we believe that the judge or 
attorney is committed to recovery and no longer poses a threat to the public or the 
judicial system.  Norris, 76 Ohio St.3d at 94, 666 N.E.2d 1087.  But, cf., 
Gallagher, 82 Ohio St.3d at 53, 693 N.E.2d 1078 (in which rehabilitation 
evidence could not overshadow the egregiousness of the judge’s misconduct).  In 
these circumstances, we tailor the sanction to assist and monitor the attorney’s 
recovery. 
{¶ 20} Respondent’s acts clearly arose from his addiction to alcohol, and 
as the board observed, respondent has undertaken every action recommended for 
his recovery from his addiction.  Moreover, his performance on the bench remains 
above reproach.  We therefore conclude that he poses no risk to the public good or 
the good of the judicial system, and, further, that an actual suspension of 
respondent’s license to practice would disserve these interests. 
{¶ 21} Respondent is therefore suspended from the practice of law in 
Ohio for six months; however, this suspension is stayed on the condition that he 
comply with the terms of his OLAP contract until March 26, 2006.  If respondent 
violates this condition, the stay shall be lifted, and respondent shall serve the 
entire six-month suspension.  Costs are taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, 
O’CONNOR and O’DONNELL, JJ., concur. 
January Term, 2004 
7 
___________________ 
 
Jonathan E. Coughlan, Disciplinary Counsel, and Stacy Solochek 
Beckman, Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. 
 
Montgomery, Rennie & Jonson and George D. Jonson, for respondent. 
_____________________