Case Title: Ohio State Bar Assn. v. Burkholder

Citation: 2009-Ohio-761

Docket Number: 

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2009-02-26T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as Ohio State Bar Assn. v. Burkholder, 121 Ohio St.3d 262, 2009-Ohio-761.] 
 
 
OHIO STATE BAR ASSOCIATION v. BURKHOLDER. 
[Cite as Ohio State Bar Assn. v. Burkholder, 
 121 Ohio St.3d 262, 2009-Ohio-761.] 
Attorney misconduct — Record of violations of court orders and rules governing 
the profession — Indefinite license suspension. 
(No. 2008-2052 — Submitted December 17, 2008 — Decided  
February 26, 2009.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 07-060. 
__________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Fred J. Burkholder of Somerville, Massachusetts, 
Attorney Registration No. 0014094, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 
1983.  His license to practice is under suspension for failure to comply with 
licensure requirements. 
{¶ 2} On September 17, 2008, we found respondent in contempt of the 
order issued in Toledo Bar Assn. v. Burkholder, 109 Ohio St.3d 443, 2006-Ohio-
2817, 848 N.E.2d 840, and revoked the stay of a six-month suspension imposed 
for professional misconduct involving improper sexual advances toward a client.  
See Toledo Bar Assn. v. Burkholder, 119 Ohio St.3d 1457, 2008-Ohio-4665, 893 
N.E.2d 848.  Previously, in In re Atty. Registration Suspension, 116 Ohio St.3d 
1420, 2007-Ohio-6463, 877 N.E.2d 305, we suspended respondent’s license for 
failure to properly register as an attorney.  And before that, on April 16, 2007, we 
issued an interim suspension of respondent’s license to practice because he was in 
default of court-ordered child support.  See In re Burkholder, 113 Ohio St.3d 
1455, 2007-Ohio-1751, 864 N.E.2d 643. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
{¶ 3} The Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline now 
recommends that we indefinitely suspend respondent’s license to practice, 
precluding him from petitioning for reinstatement for at least two years from 
April 16, 2007.  The board’s recommendation is based on findings that in addition 
to his failure to comply with child-support and attorney-registration requirements, 
respondent has been convicted of criminal offenses of violence.  We agree that 
respondent, an alcoholic now in recovery, committed professional misconduct as 
found by the board, and because the misconduct resulted in part from his disease, 
we find that an indefinite suspension is appropriate. 
{¶ 4} Relator charged respondent with violations of the Disciplinary 
Rules of the Code of Professional Responsibility and the Rules of Professional 
Conduct.1  A panel of the board heard the case, including the parties’ 
comprehensive stipulations, and made findings of fact, conclusions of law, and 
the recommendation of an indefinite suspension.  The board adopted the panel’s 
findings of misconduct and recommendation. 
{¶ 5} Neither party has objected to the board report. 
Misconduct 
{¶ 6} Respondent at one time had a thriving domestic-relations practice 
in Lucas County, Ohio.  By September 2001, however, he and his wife had 
separated, and they eventually divorced, and in October 2005, respondent turned 
the practice over to another lawyer so that he could focus on recovering from 
what had become a serious problem with alcohol.  Unable to maintain sobriety 
even with treatment, respondent moved to Boston, Massachusetts, in September 
2006 to seek help from a sister living in the area. 
                                                 
1.  Relator charged respondent with misconduct under applicable rules for acts occurring before 
and after February 1, 2007, the effective date of the Rules of Professional Conduct, which 
supersede the Code of Professional Responsibility.  Though we may specify both the former and 
current rule for the same act, the allegation represents but a single ethical violation.  Disciplinary 
Counsel v. Freeman, 119 Ohio St.3d 330, 2008-Ohio-3836, 894 N.E.2d 31, ¶ 1, fn. 1. 
 
January Term, 2009 
3 
{¶ 7} While in Massachusetts, respondent was convicted of assault and 
battery, threatening to commit crimes against the person or property of another, 
and of twice violating an abuse-prevention order.  The victim had been his 
fiancée.  He served six months in jail and is now on probation until October 7, 
2009. 
{¶ 8} As mentioned, we issued an interim suspension of respondent’s 
license to practice on April 16, 2007, for his being in default of court-ordered 
child support.  He testified before the panel that the child-support issues have 
been resolved and that he is currently paying more than his monthly child-support 
obligation.  That suspension, like his suspension for failing to update his attorney 
registration, remains in effect.  Respondent continues to live in Boston and abide 
by the terms of his probation.  He hopes to return to Ohio eventually. 
{¶ 9} In accordance with the parties’ stipulations, the panel and board 
found respondent in violation of (1) DR l-102(A)(6) and successor Prof.Cond.R. 
8.4(h) (for two counts of engaging in conduct that adversely reflects on a lawyer’s 
fitness to practice law), (2) DR l-102(A)(3) (prohibiting  illegal conduct involving 
moral turpitude) and Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(d) (prohibiting conduct that is prejudicial 
to the administration of justice), and (3) Gov.Bar R. VI(1)(D) for his failure to 
register as an attorney at his current address.  We accept these findings of 
misconduct. 
Sanction 
{¶ 10} In recommending respondent’s indefinite suspension from practice 
as the appropriate sanction, the panel and board weighed the relevant aggravating 
and mitigating factors.  See Section 10 of the Rules and Regulations Governing 
Procedure on Complaints and Hearings Before the Board of Commissioners on 
Grievances and Discipline (“BCGD Proc.Reg.”).  Weighing against respondent 
are his disciplinary record and multiple disciplinary infractions, including his 
multiple criminal convictions.  See BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(a) and (d).  
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
Mitigating factors include respondent’s free disclosure of his wrongdoing and his 
commitment to the process of recovery from alcohol dependency.  See BCGD 
Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(d) and 10(B)(2)(g)(i) through (iv) (chemical dependency 
mitigating upon (i) proof of a reliable diagnosis, (ii) a showing that the 
dependency contributed to cause the misconduct, (iii) demonstration of the 
successful completion of an approved treatment program,  and (iv) a reliable 
prognosis that the attorney will be able to return to ethical professional practice 
under specified conditions). 
{¶ 11} The panel and board paraphrased respondent’s hearing testimony 
about his longstanding battle with alcohol: 
{¶ 12} “Respondent began drinking moderately at the age of 13 or 14 and 
has a family history of alcoholism.  His drinking increased while in law school 
until his late twenties when he realized it had become an issue.  He sought help 
and quit drinking at age twenty-nine, and remained “dry” [footnote omitted] for 
nearly ten years.  * * *  Respondent served on the Toledo Bar Association’s 
Lawyer Assistance Committee and helped others who were suffering from 
substance abuse.  He frequently attended AA [Alcoholics Anonymous] meetings 
during that period of time, but never chose a sponsor and never worked the twelve 
steps.  Eventually he began attending fewer and fewer AA meetings until he quit 
participating in the AA program completely. 
{¶ 13} “By October 2006, while living in Boston, Respondent’s alcohol 
consumption had spun out of control and he was drinking a half gallon of vodka 
daily.  Respondent got ‘sober’ while incarcerated and has maintained that sobriety 
since April 1, 2007.  Since his release from jail, Respondent has attended five AA 
meetings per week and has participated in domestic-abuse counseling. He 
successfully completed an eight month in-patient alcohol abuse program. 
Respondent has contacted [the Ohio Lawyers Assistance Program] and hopes to 
participate in that program upon his return to Ohio.” 
January Term, 2009 
5 
{¶ 14} Respondent has satisfied the requirements of BCGD Proc.Reg. 
10(B)(2)(g)(i) through (iv).  Daniel Chandler, M.D., of the Tufts Medical Center 
in Boston, reported that respondent’s alcohol abuse “almost certainly contributed 
to his previous misconduct.”  Given respondent’s treatment and progress, 
however, Dr. Chandler concluded that respondent is “competent to return to Ohio 
and attempt to start working again as a lawyer” and that his continued 
involvement in AA is sufficient to “document combined sobriety and provide an 
early alarm if Mr. Burkholder needs any additional support in the future.” 
{¶ 15} The panel and board observed that respondent is “a talented lawyer 
with much to offer clients if clean and sober.”  Now, he “appears committed to 
changing his life, conquering his addiction, and returning to permanent sobriety.”  
We accept these findings and agree that an indefinite suspension is appropriate in 
this case. 
{¶ 16} We therefore indefinitely suspend respondent from the practice of 
law in Ohio.  Because a portion of this sanction follows from the interim 
suspension for default on orders to pay child support, we also accept the 
recommendation, submitted jointly by the parties, to order the indefinite 
suspension effective as of our April 16, 2007 order in Burkholder, 113 Ohio St.3d 
1455, 2007-Ohio-1751, 864 N.E.2d 643.  Also consistent with the parties’ 
recommendations, we order respondent to fulfill, in addition to the requirements 
in Gov.Bar R. V(10)(B) through (E), the following conditions to petition for 
reinstatement: 
{¶ 17} (1)  Respondent shall present evidence that he has and continues to 
participate actively and meaningfully in the Lawyers Support System of the Ohio 
Lawyers Assistance Program; 
{¶ 18} (2)  Respondent shall present evidence that he has entered and 
continues in treatment with a psychiatrist, psychologist, or other licensed health-
care professional to address his history of domestic violence; 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
{¶ 19} (3)  Respondent shall present evidence that he has completed all 
continuing legal education requirements; 
{¶ 20} (4)  Respondent shall present evidence that he is in compliance 
with all applicable court orders for payment of child support; 
{¶ 21} (5)  Respondent shall present a report from a psychiatrist, 
psychologist, or other licensed health-care professional stating that to a reasonable 
degree of psychiatric, psychological, or scientific certainty or probability, (a) 
respondent is emotionally and psychologically able to withstand the pressures and 
demands associated with the practice of law and (b) his mental health will not 
impair his ability to meet the demands of the practice of law.  The report shall 
have been prepared from an assessment conducted within 30 days of the petition 
for reinstatement and shall be made available to relator upon request. 
{¶ 22} Costs are taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, 
C.J., 
and 
PFEIFER, 
LUNDBERG 
STRATTON, 
O’CONNOR, 
O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, and CUPP, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
Eugene P. Whetzel, Bar Counsel, for relator. 
Adray & Grna and James S. Adray, for respondent. 
______________________