Case Title: Columbus Bar Assn. v. Smith

Citation: 2003-Ohio-5751

Docket Number: 20020583

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2003-11-12T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as Columbus Bar Assn. v. Smith, 100 Ohio St.3d 278, 2003-Ohio-5751.] 
 
 
COLUMBUS BAR ASSOCIATION v. SMITH. 
[Cite as Columbus Bar Assn. v. Smith, 100 Ohio St.3d 278, 2003-Ohio-5751.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Representing another before an 
administrative agency while under suspension from the practice of law 
— Attorney found in contempt of Supreme Court of Ohio and ordered to 
serve seven days in jail with sentence suspended on the conditions that 
he does not again violate an order of the Supreme Court, participates 
with 
OLAP, 
and 
cooperates 
in 
all 
respects 
with 
OLAP’s 
recommendations. 
(No. 2002-0583 — Submitted September 24, 2003 — Decided November 12, 
2003.) 
ON ORDER to Appear and Show Cause. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶1} 
Respondent, Charles E. Smith, last known address in Dublin, Ohio, 
Attorney Registration No. 0023633, was admitted to the Ohio bar in 1981.  On 
May 23, 2002, we suspended respondent’s license to practice law for an interim 
remedial period pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(5a) based on credible evidence that his 
continued practice posed a substantial threat of serious harm to the public.  See 
Columbus Bar Assn. v. Smith, 95 Ohio St.3d 1468, 2002-Ohio 2424, 768 N.E.2d 
660.  On December 18, 2002, we indefinitely suspended respondent from the 
practice of law for professional misconduct pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V.  See 
Columbus Bar Assn. v. Smith, 97 Ohio St.3d 497, 2002-Ohio-6728, 780 N.E.2d 
584. 
{¶2} 
On November 22, 2002, relator, Columbus Bar Association, 
moved for an order requiring respondent to appear and to show cause why he 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
should not be held in contempt for violating our interim remedial suspension 
order.  On December 27, 2002, we granted relator’s motion and ordered 
respondent to file within 20 days a written response as to why he should not be 
held in contempt.  Respondent did not file a response.  We thus ordered 
respondent sua sponte to appear before us on September 24, 2003.  Respondent 
appeared as ordered. 
{¶3} 
Relator established that on July 2, 2002, respondent appeared and 
argued on behalf of a licensed professional taxicab driver before the city of 
Columbus Vehicle for Hire Board.  The Vehicle for Hire Board is an 
administrative agency responsible for licensure of taxicabs in accordance with 
city ordinances, and its authority includes the authority to issue subpoenas and 
conduct hearings.  See Columbus City Code 585.02 and 585.06(b).  Relator also 
asserted, based on a judge’s affidavit and court transcript, that respondent 
appeared on August 15, 2002, in Franklin County Common Pleas Court on behalf 
of a client. 
{¶4} 
The representation of another before an administrative agency 
generally constitutes the practice of law, Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Coats, 98 Ohio 
St.3d 413, 2003-Ohio-1496, 786 N.E.2d 449, ¶ 3, and respondent appeared before 
the Vehicle for Hire Board after our May 23, 2003 suspension order.  We 
therefore find respondent in contempt for this conduct. 
{¶5} 
We do not, however, find respondent in contempt for his court 
appearance.  During oral argument, respondent assured us that in appearing before 
the common pleas court, he had intended to advise the judge only of his client’s 
need for other counsel and that if his efforts created the impression of 
representation it was by mistake.  We can see why the judge reported 
respondent’s conduct to relator and why relator reported it to this court.  
Nevertheless, we do not find that this incident constituted the practice of law. 
January Term, 2003 
3 
{¶6} 
Relator urges us to impose a fine and jail sentence for respondent’s 
contempt.  We agree that respondent’s conduct requires a severe penalty, but 
respondent’s representations during oral argument have persuaded us to temper 
our disposition.  Respondent was apparently once a conscientious and competent 
trial lawyer but has in recent years suffered personally and professionally from 
depression or some other form of illness, possibly alcohol dependency.  He has 
sought professional treatment but clearly has not been able to medically manage 
his condition. 
{¶7} 
Accordingly, we find respondent in contempt and order that he 
serve seven days in jail; however, this sentence is suspended on the conditions 
that respondent does not violate an order of this court, participates with the Ohio 
Lawyers’ Assistance Program, and cooperates in all respects with the 
organization’s recommendations.  Respondent’s failure to obey any of these 
conditions will result in his incarceration. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, O’CONNOR and O’DONNELL, JJ., 
concur. 
 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, J., concurs in part because she would order a $250 
fine, suspended, rather than seven days in jail, suspended. 
 
PFEIFER, J., dissents and would fine respondent $250, suspended. 
__________________ 
 
Sowald, Sowald & Clouse and Heather G. Sowald;  David S. Jump; Bruce 
A. Campbell, Bar Counsel, and Jill M. Snitcher McQuain, Assistant Bar Counsel, 
for relator. 
 
Charles E. Smith, pro se. 
__________________