Case Title: Mahoning Cty. Bar Assn. v. Theisler

Citation: 2010-Ohio-1472

Docket Number: 20091541

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2010-04-08T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
Mahoning Cty. Bar Assn. v. Theisler, Slip Opinion No. 2010-Ohio-1472.] 
 
 
NOTICE 
This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in 
an advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports.  Readers are requested 
to promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 
65 South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographical or 
other formal errors in the opinion, in order that corrections may be 
made before the opinion is published. 
 
SLIP OPINION NO. 2010-OHIO-1472 
MAHONING COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION v. THEISLER. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as Mahoning Cty. Bar Assn. v. Theisler,  
Slip Opinion No. 2010-Ohio-1472.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Violations of the Disciplinary Rules, including 
98 felony convictions — Indefinite license suspension ordered. 
(No. 2009-1541 — Submitted November 18, 2009 — Decided April 8, 2010.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 05-012. 
__________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Charles W. Theisler of Youngstown, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0062582, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1993.  
On October 27, 2005, we suspended respondent’s license to practice for an 
interim period pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(5)(A)(4) upon receiving notice that he 
had been convicted of a felony.  See In re Theisler, 106 Ohio St.3d 1560, 2005-
Ohio-5665, 836 N.E.2d 584.  At that time, we ordered that the matter be referred 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
to relator, Mahoning County Bar Association, for investigation and 
commencement of disciplinary proceedings.  Id. Nearly a year later, this court 
found respondent in contempt of our 2005 order for failing to file an affidavit of 
compliance on or before November 28, 2005.  In re Theisler, 110 Ohio St.3d 
1483, 2006-Ohio-4877, 854 N.E.2d 210. 
{¶ 2} The Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline 
recommends that as our final disposition in this case, we indefinitely suspend 
respondent’s license to practice law without any credit for time served during the 
interim felony suspension.  We accept the board’s findings and conclusions that 
respondent violated ethical standards incumbent on Ohio lawyers.  Therefore, we 
indefinitely suspend respondent’s license to practice law in Ohio, granting no 
credit for time served under the interim suspension. 
Misconduct 
{¶ 3} In addition to having been a licensed attorney, respondent was a 
licensed chiropractor.1  After over 20 years of chiropractic practice in 
Youngstown, respondent became a licensed Ohio attorney in 1993.  Five years 
later, respondent graduated from the Grace University School of Medicine in St. 
Kitts, but did not complete the United States Medical Licensing Examinations and 
therefore was never a licensed physician. 
{¶ 4} Respondent associated himself with two medical doctors doing 
business under the name Pain Management Associates.  After initially consulting 
medical doctors at Pain Management, patients returning for follow-up 
appointments would see respondent, who wrote prescriptions for them on a 
doctor’s presigned blank prescription pads. 
{¶ 5} Ultimately, respondent was indicted by the grand jury on 118 
counts relating to his activities at Pain Management Associates.  The counts 
included engaging in a pattern of corrupt activity, drug trafficking, illegal 
                                                          
 
1.  Respondent’s chiropractic license was revoked as a result of his felony convictions. 
January Term, 2010 
3 
 
processing of drug documents, and practicing medicine or surgery without a 
certificate.  A jury found respondent guilty on 98 counts, and respondent served 
three years in prison. 
{¶ 6} The Trumbull County Court of Appeals affirmed respondent’s 
convictions and sentences.  State v. Theisler, Trumbull App. No. 2005 T 0106, 
2007-Ohio-213, ¶ 127.  This court declined jurisdiction.  State v. Theisler, 114 
Ohio St.3d 1412, 2007 Ohio 2632, 867 N.E.2d 845.  In addition, the Eleventh 
District Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s denial of respondent’s petition 
for postconviction relief.  State v. Theisler, Trumbull App. No. 2009-T-0003, 
2009-Ohio-6862, ¶ 33.  Respondent’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus was also 
denied.  Respondent served his three-year term of imprisonment, which ended in 
September 2008, after which he was placed on probation.  That order remains in 
effect until September 2011. 
{¶ 7} After respondent’s 2005 felony license suspension, we ordered that 
the matter be referred to relator for investigation.  Relator charged respondent in 
an amended complaint with violating certain Disciplinary Rules of the Code of 
Professional Responsibility, including DR 1-102(A)(4) (engaging in conduct 
involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation) and 1-102(A)(6) 
(engaging in conduct that adversely reflects on the lawyer’s fitness to practice 
law). 
{¶ 8} A three-member panel of the Board of Commissioners on 
Grievances and Discipline heard testimony at a hearing and considered the 
parties’ joint stipulations.  Respondent testified that during his employment with 
Pain Management Associates as a “medical assistant,” he ceased practicing 
chiropractic services.  He also testified that prior to accepting the job, he had 
reviewed R.C. Chapter 4730 regarding physician assistants and former Ohio 
Adm.Code 4731-4-04, which addressed physician-assistant prohibitions.  From 
that research, he erroneously concluded that he could perform medical 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
examinations, give injections, and undertake any other clinical work that the 
physician might delegate to him under supervision.  Respondent testified that he 
performed follow-up exams only and that he was not engaged in the practice of 
medicine.  At the hearing, respondent admitted that he had failed to earn a 
certificate as a “medical assistant,” although that option had been open to him. 
{¶ 9} Based on the exhibits submitted and testimony at the hearing 
before it, the panel found by clear and convincing evidence that respondent had 
violated DR 1-102(A)(4), in that respondent’s felony convictions demonstrated 
conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation, and 1-
102(A)(6), in that respondent’s convictions adversely reflected on his fitness to 
practice law. 
{¶ 10} In addition, the panel issued findings of fact and conclusions of 
law and made a recommendation.  The board adopted the panel’s findings and the 
recommendation that we indefinitely suspend respondent’s license to practice law 
without any credit for time served during the interim felony suspension.  
Respondent objected to the board’s recommended sanction, arguing that it was 
too harsh, punishes respondent disproportionately to others, and is not necessary 
to protect the public. 
Sanction 
{¶ 11} When imposing sanctions for attorney misconduct, we consider 
relevant factors, including the duties violated by the lawyer in question and 
sanctions imposed in similar cases.  Stark Cty. Bar Assn. v. Buttacavoli, 96 Ohio 
St.3d 424, 2002-Ohio-4743, 775 N.E.2d 818, ¶ 16.  Before making a final 
determination, we also weigh evidence of the aggravating and mitigating factors 
listed in 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.”).  See Lake Cty. Bar Assn. v. Troy, 121 Ohio St.3d 
51, 2009-Ohio-502, 901 N.E.2d 809, ¶ 11. 
January Term, 2010 
5 
 
{¶ 12} We have identified respondent's breaches of his duties to his 
clients, the legal profession, and the judicial system.  In respondent’s case, the 
parties stipulated and the board found two aggravating factors: respondent’s 
misconduct involved a pattern of misconduct, BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(c), and 
multiple offenses, 10(B)(1)(d). 
{¶ 13} The parties stipulated to the following five mitigating factors: no 
prior disciplinary violations, BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(a), a lack of dishonest or 
selfish motive, 10(B)(2)(b), absence of harm to victims, and his aversion to 
committing further offenses.  Furthermore, the parties stipulated that respondent 
had cooperated fully with relator and the panel during the investigation and 
disciplinary proceedings, BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(d), and that respondent has 
received and served criminal sanctions for his illegal activity, 10(B)(2)(f).  
However, the panel also noted its doubts about the stipulation that no dishonest 
motive was involved, and it further noted that no letters attesting to respondent’s 
good character had been submitted. 
{¶ 14} Relator recommended an indefinite suspension with no credit 
given for the interim suspension.  Respondent proposed a two-year suspension 
with credit for the interim suspension, or in the event that the court imposes an 
indefinite suspension, that credit be given for time served. 
{¶ 15} The board, echoing the panel, noted that respondent showed 
remorse during the hearing and that he has already paid a debt to society by virtue 
of his incarceration and his continued probation.  The board found that no medical 
patients were harmed, but it could not discount that respondent has 98 felony 
convictions.  The board adopted the panel’s recommendation that respondent’s 
license to practice law be indefinitely suspended without credit for the interim 
felony suspension. 
Review 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
 
{¶ 16} In determining the appropriate sanction for professional 
misconduct, this court considers the duties violated, the actual or potential injury 
caused, the lawyer’s mental state, existence of aggravated or mitigating 
circumstances, and sanctions imposed in similar cases.  Columbus Bar Assn. v. 
Linnen, 111 Ohio St.3d 507, 2006-Ohio-5480, 857 N.E.2d 539, at ¶ 25. 
{¶ 17} As noted in the board’s report, the applicable sanction for serious 
felony convictions has been either disbarment or indefinite suspension.  The board 
recommends that we indefinitely suspend respondent’s license with no credit for 
time served on his interim suspension.  After reviewing relevant cases outlined 
below, we accept this recommendation. 
{¶ 18} Regarding sanctions in similar cases, we find Disciplinary Counsel 
v. LoDico, 118 Ohio St.3d 316, 2008-Ohio-2465, 888 N.E.2d 1097, to be 
instructive.  LoDico involved an interim suspension based on the respondent’s 
felony conviction of carrying a concealed weapon.  This court imposed an 
indefinite suspension with no credit for the interim suspension, despite mitigating 
factors similar to those in this case.  Specifically, LoDico involved stipulated 
facts, a cooperative respondent, and completion of a court-ordered sentence.  
LoDico did have a prior disciplinary violation for unprofessional conduct that had 
warranted an 18-month suspension with six months stayed on conditions.  
However, LoDico was convicted of only one fourth-degree felony, whereas 
respondent was convicted of 98 felonies, ranging from the first to fifth degree. 
{¶ 19} Moreover, in Linnen, 111 Ohio St.3d 507, 2006-Ohio-5480, 857 
N.E.2d 539, the attorney had been convicted of 53 misdemeanors: two first-
degree misdemeanor counts of sexual imposition, one first-degree misdemeanor 
count of aggravated trespass, 11 third-degree misdemeanor counts of sexual 
imposition, and 39 fourth-degree misdemeanor counts of public indecency.  Id. at 
¶ 5.  Unlike respondent’s, none of Linnen’s crimes were felonies, and this court 
indefinitely suspended Linnen’s license. 
January Term, 2010 
7 
 
{¶ 20} Respondent makes much of the fact that he did not believe at the 
time that what he was doing when working as a physician’s assistant at Pain 
Management Associates was wrong, and he relies heavily on Disciplinary 
Counsel v. Margolis, 114 Ohio St.3d 165, 2007-Ohio-3607, 870 N.E.2d 1158.  
Margolis was convicted of two counts of conspiracy to restrain trade.  Like 
respondent, Margolis was found to have violated DR 1-102(A)(4) and 1-
102(A)(6).  Id. at ¶ 9.  Margolis was suspended from the practice of law for two 
years.  Id. at ¶ 30.  Unlike in this case, however, the board had recommended a 
two-year suspension.  Id. at ¶ 2. Also, Margolis submitted 92 letters commending 
him personally and professionally, whereas no letters attesting to respondent’s 
good character were submitted to the board here.  Moreover, the board noted, 
“The Panel has doubts about accepting the stipulation that there was no dishonest 
motive here.”  Furthermore, Margolis was convicted of two antitrust crimes as 
opposed to respondent’s 98 crimes.  Respondent’s reliance on Margolis, as well 
as the other cases cited in his objections to the board’s report and 
recommendation, is misplaced. 
{¶ 21} Respondent’s 98 felonies, including aggravated trafficking in 
drugs, illegal processing of drug documents, engaging in a pattern of corrupt 
activity, and practicing medicine or surgery without a certificate, warrant an 
indefinite license suspension without credit for time served.  We are compelled to 
agree with relator that “a lawyer who (allegedly) researches an issue and, in 
reliance on that research, is convicted of 98 felonies, is as much of a threat to 
future potential clients as a lawyer who researches the law and knows his conduct 
is wrong but nevertheless commits the felonies.” 
{¶ 22} Accordingly, we accept the board’s recommendation.  Respondent 
is therefore indefinitely suspended from the practice of law in Ohio without credit 
for time served during the interim felony suspension imposed on October 27, 
2005.  Respondent is also required to complete his term of probation before 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
8 
 
applying for readmission to the practice of law in Ohio.  Costs are taxed to 
respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, 
C.J.,2 
and 
PFEIFER, 
LUNDBERG 
STRATTON, 
O’CONNOR, 
O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, and CUPP, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
Ronald E. Slipski and David Comstock Jr., for relator. 
John B. Juhasz, for respondent. 
______________________ 
                                                          
 
2.  The late Chief Justice Thomas J. Moyer participated in the deliberations in, and the final 
resolution of, this case prior to his death.