Case Title: Disciplinary Counsel v. Webster

Citation: 2003-Ohio-2459

Docket Number: 20021996

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2003-05-16T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Webster, 99 Ohio St.3d 92, 2003-Ohio-2459.] 
 
 
OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. WEBSTER. 
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Webster, 99 Ohio St.3d 92, 2003-Ohio-2459.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Indefinite suspension — Reciprocal discipline 
— Suspension to run concurrently with period of disbarment imposed by 
Supreme Court of Rhode Island. 
(No. 2002-1996 — Submitted March 26, 2003 — Decided May 16, 2003.) 
ON CERTIFIED ORDER of the Supreme Court of Rhode Island, No. 2001-477 M.P. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶1} 
On October 18, 2001, respondent, John B. Webster, last known 
address in Coventry, Rhode Island, Attorney Registration No. 0033158, was 
disbarred from the practice of law in Rhode Island.  On November 18, 2002, 
relator, Disciplinary Counsel, filed in this court a certified copy of the order of 
disbarment.  The cause is now before us pursuant to the reciprocal discipline 
provisions of Gov.Bar R. V(11)(F).1 
{¶2} 
When an attorney has been professionally disciplined in another 
state, Gov.Bar R. V(11)(F)(4)(a)(ii) requires us to impose identical or comparable 
disciplinary measures unless a substantially different sanction is warranted in 
Ohio.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Meenen (2000), 88 Ohio St.3d 268, 725 N.E.2d 
626.  In Rhode Island, attorneys may petition for reinstatement five years from the 
effective date of the disbarment.  R.I. S.Ct.Rules, Art. III, Rule 16(b).  However, 
an attorney disbarred in Ohio is forever prohibited from practicing law.  Thus, we 
                                                 
1 We previously suspended respondent from the practice of law in Ohio on November 28, 2001, 
pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(5) (interim suspension for attorney’s conviction of a felony).  In re 
Webster (2001), 93 Ohio St.3d 1491, 758 N.E.2d 1143.  On November 8, 2002, we cited 
respondent for contempt because he failed to file an affidavit of compliance as ordered.  In re 
Webster, 97 Ohio St.3d 1435, 2002-Ohio-6055, 778 N.E.2d 47. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
consider an indefinite suspension that runs concurrently with the period of 
disbarment in Rhode Island the most comparable Ohio sanction available. 
{¶3} 
Accordingly, respondent is hereby indefinitely suspended from the 
practice of law in Ohio.  This suspension shall run concurrently with the period of 
disbarment imposed by the Supreme Court of Rhode Island, and is to last at least 
until respondent is reinstated in Rhode Island.  Any application for reinstatement 
in Ohio shall be subject to the procedures and requirements of Gov.Bar R. V(10).  
Costs are taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, COOK, LUNDBERG STRATTON, and O’CONNOR, 
JJ., concur. 
MOYER, C.J., and PFEIFER, J., dissent. 
__________________ 
MOYER, C.J., dissenting. 
{¶4} 
I agree with the majority’s interpretation of Gov.Bar R. 
V(11)(F)(4)(a)(ii).  The rule does require us to impose identical or comparable 
disciplinary measures unless a substantially different sanction is warranted. 
{¶5} 
It is also true, however, that Gov.Bar R. V(11)(F)(6) permits this 
court to enhance the sanction if an attorney fails to report to the Disciplinary 
Counsel and to the Clerk of the Supreme Court that he has been subjected to 
discipline in another jurisdiction.  According to the record, Webster did not notify 
this court of his disbarment in Rhode Island. 
{¶6} 
Webster’s conduct warrants an enhanced sanction.  Specifically, he 
was convicted of a felony for making false statements to government agencies, for 
which we suspended him from the practice of law in Ohio pursuant to Gov.Bar R. 
V(5)(A)(3).  In re Webster (2001), 93 Ohio St.3d 1491, 758 N.E.2d 1143. We 
thereafter cited him for contempt because he failed to file an affidavit of 
January Term, 2003 
 
3
compliance as ordered. In re Webster, 97 Ohio St.3d 1435, 2002-Ohio-6055, 778 
N.E.2d 47.  Such behavior causes me to conclude that an indefinite suspension is 
not sufficient.  Therefore, in accordance with Gov.Bar R. V(11)(F)(6), I would 
enhance the sanction and disbar respondent. 
 
PFEIFER, J., concurs in the foregoing dissenting opinion. 
__________________ 
 
Jonathan E. Coughlan, Disciplinary Counsel, and Stacy Solochek 
Beckman, Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. 
__________________