Title: Disciplinary Counsel v. Bowling

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
Disciplinary Counsel v. Bowling, Slip Opinion No. 2010-Ohio-5040.] 
 
 
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-5040 
DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. BOWLING. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as Disciplinary Counsel v. Bowling,  
Slip Opinion No. 2010-Ohio-5040.] 
Attorneys — Violation of a Judicial Canon — Consent to discipline — Public 
reprimand. 
(No. 2010-1103 — Submitted August 10, 2010 — Decided October 21, 2010.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 09-092. 
__________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Larry Roger Bowling of Wilmington, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0040421, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1988.  
At all times relevant herein, Bowling served as a magistrate judge in the Clinton 
County Juvenile/Probate Court.  Therefore, he is subject to the Code of Judicial 
Conduct.  36 Ohio St.2d xxxiv.  After respondent was charged with possession of 
drug paraphernalia and possession of marijuana in December 2008, relator, 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
Disciplinary Counsel, charged him with violations of Canon 2 of the former Code 
of Judicial Conduct,1 36 Ohio St.2d xxi (requiring a judge to respect and comply 
with the law and act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in 
the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary) and Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(h) 
(prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct that adversely reflects upon the 
lawyer’s fitness to practice law). 
{¶ 2} A panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievance and 
Discipline considered the cause on the parties’ consent-to-discipline agreement.  
See Section 11 of the Rules and Regulations Governing Procedure on Complaints 
and Hearings Before the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline 
(“BCGD Proc.Reg.”).  The panel and board recommend that we accept the 
agreement, including the agreed stipulations of fact and misconduct and the 
sanction of a public reprimand.  We adopt these findings of fact and misconduct 
and the recommended sanction. 
Misconduct 
{¶ 3} The stipulated facts of this case show that after suffering a 
debilitating stroke in March 2008, respondent, who had occasionally used 
marijuana on weekends, began using it on a daily basis as a means of self-
medication to alleviate the physical and psychological effects of the stroke.  In 
December 2008, he was cited for possession of marijuana, a minor misdemeanor, 
and possession of drug paraphernalia, a fourth-degree misdemeanor.  By 
agreement, the drug-paraphernalia charge was dismissed, and the possession-of-
marijuana charge was resolved by forfeiture of a $168 bond.  Respondent did not 
plead guilty to, nor was he convicted of, any crime. 
{¶ 4} Since being charged with possession of marijuana, respondent has 
not used alcohol or marijuana or any other illegal substance.  He has entered into 
                                                 
1.  A revised Code of Judicial Conduct took effect March 1, 2009. 
January Term, 2010 
3 
 
a five-year contract with the Ohio Lawyers Assistance Program, has completed a 
two-day detox program followed by a four-day inpatient program at Talbot Hall, 
an addiction-medicine facility, and has finished a 90-day intensive outpatient 
program.  Respondent attends aftercare meetings at Talbot Hall and 12-step 
meetings, and he consults with his 12-step sponsor regularly. 
{¶ 5} The parties have stipulated and the panel and board have found 
that respondent’s conduct violated Canon 2 of the former Code of Judicial 
Conduct.  Relator has dismissed the alleged violation of Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(h). 
Sanction 
{¶ 6} In recommending a sanction, the panel and board considered the 
aggravating and mitigating factors listed in BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(A) and (B).  
Consistent with the parties’ stipulations, they found the following factors 
mitigating in favor of a lesser sanction: (1) no prior disciplinary record, (2) 
absence of a dishonest or selfish motive, (3) timely good-faith effort to rectify the 
consequences of his misconduct, (4) full and free disclosure during relator’s 
investigation and a cooperative attitude toward the disciplinary proceedings, and 
(5) good character and reputation.  See BCGD Proc. Reg. 10(B)(2)(a), (b), (c), 
(d), and (e).  There is no evidence of any aggravating factors.  See BCGD 
Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1). 
{¶ 7} Both the panel and the board accepted the parties’ consent-to-
discipline agreement, including the finding of misconduct and the recommended 
sanction.  In a similar case, we publicly reprimanded a justice of this court for 
violating Canon 2 of the former Code of Judicial Conduct based upon a single 
conviction for driving a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol.  See 
In re Complaint Against Resnick, 108 Ohio St.3d 160, 2005-Ohio-6800, 842 
N.E.2d 31, ¶ 3, 8. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
{¶ 8} Based upon the foregoing, we agree that respondent violated 
Canon 2 of the former Code of Judicial Conduct and that consistent with the 
parties’ agreement, this conduct warrants a public reprimand. 
{¶ 9} Therefore, on the recommendation of the panel and board, we 
accept the consent-to-discipline agreement and publicly reprimand respondent for 
his violation of Canon 2 of the former Code of Judicial Conduct.  Costs are taxed 
to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
BROWN, 
C.J., 
and 
PFEIFER, 
LUNDBERG 
STRATTON, 
O’CONNOR, 
O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, and CUPP, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
Jonathan E. Coughlan, Disciplinary Counsel, and Carol A. Costa, 
Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. 
Geoffrey Stern and Rasheeda Z. Khan, for respondent. 
______________________