Title: Toledo Bar Assn. v. Colburn

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as Toledo Bar Assn. v. Colburn, 99 Ohio St.3d 57, 2003-Ohio-2472.] 
 
 
TOLEDO BAR ASSOCIATION v. COLBURN. 
[Cite as Toledo Bar Assn. v. Colburn, 99 Ohio St.3d 57, 2003-Ohio-2472.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — One-year suspension with credit for time license under 
suspension — Conviction of willfully fleeing a police officer — Conviction of 
vehicular assault. 
(No. 2003-0394 — Submitted April 16, 2003 — Decided May 16, 2003.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of 
the Supreme Court, No. 02-31. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶1} 
Respondent, Anthony John Colburn of Monclova, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0065164, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1995.  On June 
17, 2002, relator, Toledo Bar Association, charged that respondent had violated DR 1-
102(A)(6) (engaging in conduct that adversely reflects on an attorney’s fitness to practice 
law).  A panel appointed by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline 
heard the cause, making findings of fact, conclusions of law, and a recommendation. 
{¶2} 
Based on stipulations and respondent’s testimony at the hearing, the panel 
found that respondent was convicted of one count of willfully fleeing a police officer and 
one count of vehicular assault, felonies of the third and fourth degree, respectively, in the 
Lucas County Court of Common Pleas.  The convictions arose out of events on the 
morning of August 27, 2001, when a police officer approached respondent’s automobile 
while respondent was parked in a parking lot in Holland, Ohio.  Respondent fled the 
scene with the police officer in pursuit, lost control of his car and struck another vehicle, 
seriously injuring the young driver.  On January 2, 2002, respondent was sentenced to 27 
days in a corrections center and three years of community control.  He was also ordered 
to pay restitution, seek and maintain employment, and submit to professional counseling. 
{¶3} 
On February 19, 2002, we suspended respondent’s license to practice law 
on an interim basis pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(5)(A)(3) (suspension warranted upon notice 
of an attorney’s felony conviction).  In re Colburn (2002), 94 Ohio St.3d 1474, 763 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
N.E.2d 183. 
{¶4} 
The panel found, consistent with the parties’ stipulation, that respondent 
had violated DR 1-102(A)(6).  In recommending a sanction for respondent’s serious 
misconduct, the panel considered the compelling factors presented in mitigation of his 
convictions.  The panel found that before the events at bar, respondent’s professional and 
personal life had been distinguished by achievement and commitment.  He excelled in 
academics, becoming a certified public accountant before obtaining his law degree.  Until 
shortly before the collision, he had practiced with a law firm concentrating in business 
and tax law and was considered an accomplished attorney.  He is married and has a child. 
{¶5} 
After the child’s birth, respondent’s wife became ill with a combination of 
serious medical conditions.  The responsibilities of an ailing wife, a new son, and his 
demanding work schedule weighed so heavily upon him that respondent, who had no 
prior record of professional discipline or serious criminal conduct, began behaving 
inappropriately in public.  Respondent’s flight from law enforcement authorities, as well 
as the collision and injuries he caused on August 27, 2001, resulted from his 
overwhelming fear that this behavior would be discovered by his family, friends, and 
colleagues. 
{¶6} 
Soon after these events, respondent consulted a psychologist with whom 
he and his wife are apparently still in therapy.  The psychologist assured the panel that 
respondent had responded well to treatment and made considerable progress.  He also 
reported that it was highly unlikely that respondent would repeat this behavior. 
{¶7} 
In addition, respondent conceded his wrongdoing to the panel and 
apologized deeply for it.  He cooperated completely in the disciplinary proceedings and is 
conscientiously attending court-ordered consultations with a second counselor.  As to 
restitution, respondent does not intend to dispute liability in the lawsuit filed against him 
by the victim of the collision.  Finally, the panel was impressed with the support 
expressed throughout this ordeal by respondent’s colleagues, friends, and family. 
{¶8} 
The panel recommended, consistent with the parties’ suggestion, that 
respondent be suspended from the practice of law for one year and be credited for the 
time his license has been under suspension pursuant to our order of February 19, 2002.  
The board adopted the panel’s findings of misconduct and recommendation. 
January Term, 2003 
3 
{¶9} 
We agree that respondent violated DR 1-102(A)(6) and that a one-year 
suspension, with credit for the suspension period respondent has already served, is 
appropriate in view of the mitigating circumstances at bar.  Accordingly, respondent is 
hereby suspended from the practice of law in Ohio for a period of one year; however, he 
is to be credited for the time his license has been under suspension since February 19, 
2002.  Costs are taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER and COOK, JJ., concur. 
 
MOYER, C.J., LUNDBERG STRATTON and O’CONNOR, JJ., dissent. 
__________________ 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, J., dissenting. 
{¶10} Based upon the seriousness of respondent’s violations, I would not allow 
credit for the suspension period he has already served.  In addition, as a prerequisite to 
reinstatement, I would require respondent to submit evidence that he possesses the 
requisite mental qualifications to return to the practice of law.  Therefore, I respectfully 
dissent. 
 
MOYER, C.J., and O’CONNOR, J., concur in the foregoing dissenting opinion. 
__________________ 
 
Jonathan B. Cherry, Bar Counsel, and Arnold N. Gottlieb, for relator. 
 
Jon D. Richardson, for respondent. 
__________________