Case Title: Columbus Bar Assn. v. Baker

Citation: 1995-Ohio-77

Docket Number: 19941860

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 1995-04-12T00:00:00Z

Document:
OPINIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO                               
     The full texts of the opinions of the Supreme Court of                      
Ohio are being transmitted electronically beginning May 27,                      
1992, pursuant to a pilot project implemented by Chief Justice                   
Thomas J. Moyer.                                                                 
     Please call any errors to the attention of the Reporter's                   
Office of the Supreme Court of Ohio.  Attention:  Walter S.                      
Kobalka, Reporter, or Deborah J. Barrett, Administrative                         
Assistant.  Tel.:  (614) 466-4961; in Ohio 1-800-826-9010.                       
Your comments on this pilot project are also welcome.                            
     NOTE:  Corrections may be made by the Supreme Court to the                  
full texts of the opinions after they have been released                         
electronically to the public.  The reader is therefore advised                   
to check the bound volumes of Ohio St.3d published by West                       
Publishing Company for the final versions of these opinions.                     
The advance sheets to Ohio St.3d will also contain the volume                    
and page numbers where the opinions will be found in the bound                   
volumes of the Ohio Official Reports.                                            
                                                                                 
Columbus Bar Association v. Baker.                                               
[Cite as Columbus Bar Assn. v. Baker (1995),         Ohio                        
St.3d       .]                                                                   
Attorneys at law -- Misconduct -- Six-month suspension stayed                    
     in favor of two-year probation with conditions to begin on                  
     date of Supreme Court's decision -- Sexually harassing                      
     female employee -- Addiction to cocaine.                                    
     (No. 94-1860 -- Submitted January 25, 1995 -- Decided                       
April 12, 1995.)                                                                 
     On Certified Report by the Board of Commissioners on                        
Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 93-37.                       
     Relator, Columbus Bar Association, charged respondent,                      
Blaise Baker of Columbus, Ohio, Attorney Registration No.                        
0031580, with two counts of misconduct involving violations of,                  
inter alia, DR 1-102(A)(3) (illegal conduct involving moral                      
turpitude) and 1-102(A)(6) (conduct that adversely reflects on                   
fitness to practice law).  A panel of the Board of                               
Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court                  
heard the matter on June 13, 1994, upon admissions and                           
stipulations that respondent had committed the cited misconduct.                 
     Count One of the complaint accused respondent of having                     
sexually harassed a female employee,  and Count Two alleged his                  
addiction to cocaine.  The stipulations established, in part,                    
that:                                                                            
     "At some point prior to 1992[,] Respondent became a user                    
of cocaine and * * * alcohol.  During 1992[,] Respondent's                       
substance abuse increased both as to frequency and quantity.                     
Respondent became addicted to cocaine.  * * * During 1992[,]                     
Respondent's personal life and business affairs suffered and                     
deteriorated as a result of his substance abuse.  * * * During                   
the summer of 1992, Respondent employed a female high school                     
student, then 17 years of age, to work in his office.  She                       
performed a variety of clerical and other duties in the office                   
and filed documents at Court.  * * * On various occasions[,]                     
Respondent used inappropriate, vulgar, sexually explicit or                      
sexually suggestive language in the presence of this student                     
employee.  She was embarrassed or disgusted by this language.                    
* * * Respondent failed to timely pay his student employee                       
wages that she had earned.  Wages owed for late July and early                   
August, 1992 were not paid until September 14, 1992, after the                   
employee had filed her complaint with the Columbus Bar                           
Association."                                                                    
     The panel determined that respondent had violated DR                        
1-102(A)(3) and (A)(6) as alleged in both counts of the                          
complaint.  Before recommending a sanction for this misconduct,                  
the panel considered respondent's efforts to recover from                        
addictions to cocaine and alcohol.                                               
     Respondent has abstained from alcohol and cocaine since                     
October 27, 1992, when he voluntarily entered a hospital for                     
treatment in a two-week substance abuse program.  Since then,                    
he has remained under the care of a psychiatrist, regularly                      
attended Alcoholics Anonymous meetings, and participated in an                   
on-going out-patient counseling program.  Respondent admits                      
that he relapsed after treatment prior to his hospitalization                    
in 1992; however, the Clinical Director of the Ohio Lawyers'                     
Assistance Program ("OLAP"), which respondent  joined in the                     
fall of 1993, testified that respondent's tests for alcohol and                  
drug use have been negative.  Respondent entered a two-year                      
contract with OLAP, effective January 31, 1994, that requires                    
him to abstain from all mood-altering substances, attend                         
counseling meetings as directed, submit to random testing,                       
cooperate with any attorney monitor, facilitate contact with                     
his physician, and report monthly on his progress.                               
     Respondent's prognosis for continuing recovery is                           
encouraging, according to medical and other witnesses to his                     
treatment, and he has resumed his practice of law with success.                  
     The panel recommended that respondent be suspended from                     
the practice of law for a period of six months, but that his                     
suspension be stayed during a two-year probation period to                       
begin on July 18, 1994.   As a condition of  probation, the                      
panel recommended that respondent be required  (1) to comply                     
with the terms of his contract with OLAP, as well as with any                    
other acts OLAP requires, and (2) to renew the present contract                  
for an additional two years after its expiration in 1996.  The                   
board adopted the panel's findings of misconduct and                             
recommendation with the modification that respondent's                           
probation begin on the date of a final decision in this case.                    
                                                                                 
     Bruce A. Campbell and Thomas M. Tyack, for relator.                         
     Dennis W. McNamara, for respondent.                                         
                                                                                 
     Per Curiam.  We have reviewed the record and agree with                     
the board's findings of misconduct.  We also agree with the                      
sanction recommended by the board, despite respondent's                          
objection that the requirement to renew his two-year contract                    
with the Ohio Lawyers' Assistance Program extends his probation                  
period unnecessarily.                                                            
      Respondent complains that his probation will effectively                   
last into 1998 if he is required to renew the OLAP contract                      
when it expires in 1996.  We, however, do not consider this                      
requirement unreasonable.  As testimony in this record                           
substantiates, an addict's recovery is never absolute.  Relapse                  
is a major characteristic of the disease, and respondent has                     
already displayed this characteristic once.                                      
     Accordingly, we order that respondent be suspended from                     
the practice of law  for a period of six months, but the                         
suspension is to be stayed in favor of a two-year probation                      
period beginning on the date of our decision.  Respondent's                      
probation is subject to the conditions recommended by the                        
board.  Costs taxed to respondent.                                               
                                                                                 
                                  Judgment accordingly.                          
     Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Wright, Pfeifer and Cook, JJ.,                        
concur.                                                                          
     Resnick and F.E. Sweeney, JJ., dissent                                      
                                                                                 
Columbus Bar Assn. v. Baker.                                                     
     Alice Robie Resnick, J., dissenting.  I dissent since I                     
believe that the misconduct is of such a serious nature that an                  
actual suspension from the practice of law is warranted.                         
Therefore, I would suspend respondent for one year, with six                     
months suspended upon condition that respondent be placed on                     
probation for a period of one year, with the probationary                        
period commencing upon the expiration of the six-month actual                    
suspension.                                                                      
     F.E. Sweeney, J., concurs in the foregoing dissenting                       
opinion.