Case Title: Disciplinary Counsel v. Carson

Citation: 2001-Ohio-1300

Docket Number: 

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2001-08-15T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Carson, 93 Ohio St.3d 137, 2001-Ohio-1300] 
 
 
OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL ET AL. v. CARSON. 
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Carson (2001), 93 Ohio St.3d 137.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Two-year suspension with one year suspended 
and credit for time not practicing law since May 8, 2000 — Continuing to 
represent clients while suspended from the practice of law for failure to 
cure CLE deficiency. 
(No. 01-384 — Submitted May 16, 2001 — Decided August 15, 2001.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline 
of the Supreme Court, No. 00-48. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam.  On June 18, 1993, we suspended respondent, Edward Luke 
Carson of Girard, Ohio, Attorney Registration No. 0002642, from the practice of law 
for failure to cure the deficiency in his continuing legal education (“CLE”) 
requirements for the 1990-1991 reporting period.  In re Report of the Comm. on 
Continuing Legal Edn. (1993), 66 Ohio St.3d 1513, 1515, 614 N.E.2d 760, 762.  
Nevertheless, despite being suspended, respondent continued to represent clients until 
May 8, 2000, when he terminated his practice and informed the clients of his CLE 
suspension. 
 
On June 5, 2000, relators, Office of Disciplinary Counsel and Mahoning 
County Bar Association, filed a complaint charging that respondent’s continuation of 
the practice of law during his suspension violated the Disciplinary Rules of the Code 
of Professional Responsibility.  Respondent answered, and the matter was heard by a 
panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline (“board”). 
 
Based on stipulations and testimony at a hearing on December 5, 2000, the 
panel found that for the reporting period of 1990-1991, respondent had completed 
only 15.5 (sic) hours of his continuing legal education requirement, leaving him 9.5 
(sic) hours short of meeting the requirement for that two-year period.  In October 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
1992, the CLE Commission reported this discrepancy to the court and also found that 
respondent had not paid a sanction for a CLE reporting violation for the previous 
(1988-1989) reporting period.  In late 1992, respondent submitted a check to the CLE 
Commission for $430 in payment of the delinquent sanction fee.  The CLE 
Commission returned that check to him in December 1992, stating that the sanction 
for his failure to report CLE compliance for the 1998-1989 period was $205 plus a 
$50 late fee, and that upon payment of those amounts and a letter in lieu of transcript, 
the suspension would be deleted.  The CLE Commission told respondent that he 
would then be required to pay a $280 sanction for the 9.5-hour deficit with respect to 
his 1990-1991 CLE hours.  By the end of 1992, respondent had made up the 
deficiency in his continuing legal education hours for the 1990-1991 period.  
However, respondent did not pay the amounts, and on June 18, 1993, we suspended 
him from the practice of law and imposed a sanction of $430. 
 
On June 23, 1993, respondent submitted to the CLE Commission a letter in 
lieu of a late report, a check to satisfy his noncompliance for the 1988-1989 period, 
and a check to satisfy the $430 sanction imposed by our order of June 18, 1993, for 
the failure to meet the CLE requirements for the 1990-1991 reporting period.  In the 
same letter, respondent indicated that he would file a petition for reinstatement.  
Although by midsummer he had paid all the fines imposed by the court, had 
submitted a letter in lieu of late report, and was current in his legal education 
requirements, respondent never filed the petition for reinstatement and continued to 
practice law. 
 
After being notified in late 1999 that he was practicing law in violation of our 
order of suspension, respondent checked with the CLE Commission.  By May 8, 
2000, respondent had ceased to practice law and had taken other steps to comply with 
our June 18, 1993 order. 
 
The panel concluded that respondent’s conduct from June 18, 1993 through 
May 8, 2000, violated DR 3-101(B) (a lawyer shall not practice law in a jurisdiction 
where doing so is in violation of the regulations of that jurisdiction), 1-102(A)(4) (a 
January Term, 2001 
3 
lawyer shall not engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or 
misrepresentation), and 1-102(A)(5) (a lawyer shall not engage in conduct prejudicial 
to the administration of justice).  The panel found in mitigation that respondent is a 
recovering alcoholic who has worked closely with the Ohio Lawyers Assistance 
Program, Inc. and that during the summer of 1993, respondent was having a difficult 
time due to his condition.  The panel also found that respondent, who assumed that 
paying the fines was all he needed to do to comply with our June 1993 order, is 
currently, and has been since 1992, in full compliance with his CLE requirements.  
Finally, the panel heard testimony from a magistrate called under subpoena, and 
received more than twenty letters from attorneys and from judges written under 
subpoena testifying to the ability and good character of respondent.  All confirmed 
that during the period after June 1993, respondent provided competent representation 
to his clients. 
 
The panel recommended that respondent be suspended from the practice of 
law for two years with one year of the suspension stayed.  The board adopted the 
findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the panel. 
 
On review of the record, we adopt the findings, conclusions, and 
recommendation of the board.  Respondent is hereby suspended from the practice of 
law for two years with one year suspended and with credit for the time he has not 
practiced since May 8, 2000.  Costs are taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY and COOK, JJ., concur. 
 
PFEIFER and LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., dissent. 
__________________ 
 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, J., dissenting.  I dissent from the majority’s decision 
on actually suspending respondent for one year.  Since the respondent seems to have 
recovered and turned his life around, is in full compliance with all payment of fines 
and CLE, and believed, mistakenly, that he was entitled to resume practice, I believe 
we gain nothing by removing respondent from practice.  The respondent has had no 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
other disciplinary complaint during those seven years.  I believe we should suspend 
the two years and place respondent on probation with the condition that he keep 
current with all CLE requirements.  Therefore, I respectfully dissent from the 
sanction imposed by the majority. 
 
PFEIFER, J., concurs in the foregoing dissenting opinion. 
__________________ 
 
Jonathan E. Coughlan, Disciplinary Counsel, and Kenneth R. Donchatz, 
Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator Disciplinary Counsel. 
 
Ronald E. Slipski, for relator Mahoning County Bar Association. 
 
Charles W. Kettlewell and Charles J. Kettlewell, for respondent. 
__________________