Case Title: Disciplinary Counsel v. Jackson

Citation: 1999-Ohio-87

Docket Number: 19971316

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 1999-07-07T00:00:00Z

Document:
OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. JACKSON. 
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Jackson (1999), 86 Ohio St.3d 104.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Indefinite suspension — While under order of 
interim suspension, appearing as an attorney on behalf of a party in a 
contested divorce. 
(No. 97-1316 — Submitted April 14, 1999 — Decided July 7, 1999.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 95-25. 
 
Respondent, Jonathan Michael Jackson of Columbus, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0038349, was licensed to practice both in Ohio and in Hawaii.  In 
December 1992, the Supreme Court of Hawaii suspended him from the practice of 
law in that state for two years and ordered that he make restitution to various 
clients.  In June 1993, under the reciprocal suspension provisions of Gov.Bar R. 
V(11)(F), we suspended respondent from the practice of law in Ohio for the 
duration of his Hawaii suspension and conditioned his reinstatement in Ohio on 
evidence of the full restitution ordered by the Supreme Court of Hawaii.  
Disciplinary Counsel v. Jackson (1993), 66 Ohio St.3d 338, 612 N.E.2d 1225. 
 
From August through December 1993, while under our order of interim 
suspension, respondent appeared as an attorney on behalf of a party in a contested 
divorce in Pike County, Ohio.  In February 1995, relator, Office of Disciplinary 
Counsel, filed a complaint charging that this conduct of respondent violated 
several Disciplinary Rules.  Respondent filed an answer denying all of the 
operative facts.  After the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline 
of the Supreme Court (“board”) was unable to serve notice of a hearing on the 
respondent, it granted the relator’s motion for a default judgment.  For procedural 
reasons, we declined to adopt the findings, conclusion, and recommendation of the 
2 
board, and remanded the matter for further proceedings.  Disciplinary Counsel v. 
Jackson (1998), 81 Ohio St.3d 308, 691 N.E.2d 262. 
 
On remand, the parties waived a hearing before a panel of the board and 
stipulated that respondent was suspended from the practice of law both in Hawaii 
and Ohio; that he represented a party in a contested divorce in Pike County during 
the period of his Ohio suspension; and that this conduct violated DR 3-101(B) 
(practicing law in a jurisdiction where to do so would be a violation of the 
regulations of the profession in that jurisdiction), and Gov.Bar R. V(8)(E) (failure 
to perform the duties of a suspended attorney), and VI(6)(B) (disobedience of an 
order of suspension). 
 
After finding the facts as stipulated, the panel concluded that respondent had 
violated the rules as stipulated and recommended that respondent be indefinitely 
suspended from the practice of law in Ohio.  The board adopted the findings, 
conclusions, and recommendation of the panel. 
__________________ 
 
Jonathan E. Coughlan, Disciplinary Counsel, and Dianna M. Anelli, 
Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. 
 
Jonathan Michael Jackson, pro se. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam.  We adopt the findings of the board.  Because the parties 
stipulated to the violations, we also adopt the conclusion of the board that 
respondent violated DR 3-101(B) and Gov.Bar R. V(8)(E) and VI(6)(B), despite 
the fact that respondent was not charged with the violation of these rules in the 
disciplinary complaint with respect to his Pike County representation.  We deem 
that respondent’s review of and consent to the stipulated facts and the stipulated 
violations, and his agreed waiver of a hearing, satisfied the due process 
requirements of In re Ruffalo (1968), 390 U.S. 544, 550-551, 88 S.Ct. 1222, 1226, 
3 
20 L.Ed.2d 117, 122-123, as to these findings and conclusions.  We also adopt the 
recommendation of the board.  Respondent is hereby indefinitely suspended from 
the practice of law in Ohio.  Costs are taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER and COOK, JJ., 
concur. 
 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, J., dissents. 
__________________ 
 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, J., dissenting.  I dissent and would suspend 
respondent for one year.