Title: Disciplinary Counsel v. Doherty

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. Doherty, Slip Opinion No. 2020-Ohio-1422, 2020-Ohio-1422.] 
 
 
 
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. 2020-OHIO-1422 
DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. DOHERTY. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as Disciplinary Counsel v. Doherty, Slip Opinion No.  
2020-Ohio-1422.] 
Judges—Misconduct—Driving while intoxicated—Jud.Cond.R. 1.2 and 1.3—
Failure to act in a manner that promotes public confidence in the 
independence, integrity, and impartiality of the judiciary—Abuse of the 
prestige of judicial office to advance personal interests—Public reprimand. 
(No. 2019-1736—Submitted January 29, 2020—Decided April 14, 2020.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Professional Conduct of the Supreme 
Court, No. 2019-024. 
______________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Judge Rebecca L. Doherty, of Ravenna, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0058416, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1992.  She 
is a sitting judge of the Portage County Common Pleas Court. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
2
{¶ 2} In a May 20, 2019 complaint, relator, disciplinary counsel, alleged 
that during Doherty’s arrest for operating a vehicle while under the influence of 
alcohol (“OVI”) in February 2019, she failed to act in a manner that promotes 
public confidence in the independence, integrity, and impartiality of the judiciary 
and abused the prestige of her judicial office to advance her personal interests. 
{¶ 3} Based on the parties’ stipulations and the testimony of Doherty and 
her two character witnesses at her hearing before a panel of the Board of 
Professional Conduct, the board found that Doherty committed the charged 
misconduct and recommended that she be publicly reprimanded.  The board 
adopted the panel’s findings and recommendation. 
{¶ 4} We accept the board’s findings of misconduct and publicly reprimand 
Doherty for the misconduct described below. 
Stipulated Facts and Misconduct 
{¶ 5} On February 10, 2019, at approximately 9:00 p.m., in snowy weather 
conditions, Doherty drove her motor vehicle off the highway and into a ditch.  The 
responding police officer observed vomit inside Doherty’s car and a strong odor of 
alcohol coming from Doherty’s person.  In response to the officer’s questions, 
Doherty stated that she had driven her vehicle off the side of the road and that she 
had been drinking alcohol.  When the officer asked Doherty to identify herself, she 
responded with her name and stated several times that she was a Portage County 
common pleas judge.  Doherty was unsteady and almost fell multiple times while 
walking up the embankment to the side of the road.  And after being placed in the 
back of the cruiser, she exclaimed, “I am so intoxicated[!]”   
{¶ 6} At the police station, Doherty partially performed one of the three 
standardized field sobriety tests and refused to take a breathalyzer test.  She asked 
the officers to take her home, and when they did not comply she repeatedly 
demanded that they call her friend—a local sheriff’s deputy.  She was arrested and 
charged with a first-degree-misdemeanor count of OVI. 
January Term, 2020 
 
3
{¶ 7} At her first court appearance, Doherty entered a guilty plea and 
apologized to the court and the public for her misconduct.  She also made a 
statement to the news media acknowledging her poor judgment and apologizing for 
its negative reflection on the judiciary.  The court sentenced Doherty to 180 days 
in jail with 177 days suspended, suspended her driver’s license for one year, and 
ordered her to pay a fine of $1,075 with $700 suspended on the conditions that she 
have no other drug- or alcohol-related convictions for two years and complete a 
driver-intervention program.  Doherty paid her fine and received a three-day jail-
time credit in exchange for her having completed the driver-intervention program. 
{¶ 8} The parties stipulated and the board found that Doherty’s conduct 
violated Jud.Cond.R. 1.2 (requiring a judge to act at all times in a manner that 
promotes public confidence in the independence, integrity, and impartiality of the 
judiciary) and 1.3 (prohibiting a judge from abusing the prestige of judicial office 
to advance the personal or economic interests of the judge). 
Stipulated Sanction 
{¶ 9} When imposing sanctions for attorney misconduct, we consider all 
relevant factors, including the ethical duties that the lawyer violated, the 
aggravating and mitigating factors listed in Gov.Bar R. V(13), and the sanctions 
imposed in similar cases. 
{¶ 10} No aggravating factors are present in this case.  See Gov.Bar R. 
V(13)(B).  As for mitigating factors, the parties stipulated and the board found that 
Doherty did not have a prior disciplinary record, had cooperated in the disciplinary 
process, had other penalties and sanctions imposed for her conduct, and had 
submitted 13 letters and the testimony of two witnesses attesting to her good 
character and reputation.  See Gov.Bar R. V(13)(C)(1), (4), (5), and (6).  The board 
also found that she had not acted with a dishonest or selfish motive and had made 
a timely, good-faith effort to rectify her misconduct by pleading guilty and publicly 
apologizing for her behavior.  See Gov.Bar R. V(13)(C)(2) and (3).  In addition, 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
4
Doherty submitted a report from Anderson R. Hawes, L.P.C.C., L.S.W., L.I.C.D., 
who had assessed her and found that she did not have a substance-abuse disorder, 
emotional disorder, or psychological disorder and that she was appropriately 
remorseful about her decision to drink and drive.  Hawes concluded that no 
treatment or counseling was necessary.  After reviewing Hawes’s report and having 
an in-depth conversation with Doherty, the Ohio Lawyers Assistance Program 
concluded that there was no need for Doherty to enter into a contract with the 
program. 
{¶ 11} The board recognized that a judge’s operation of a vehicle while 
intoxicated imperils public confidence in the integrity of the judiciary.  It also stated 
that a judge’s repeated nonresponsive statements about being a judge during the 
judge’s arrest is an abuse of the prestige of the office—even when they are “borne 
of the lip-loosening effects of alcohol.”  Citing two cases in which then sitting 
jurists were publicly reprimanded for driving while under the influence of alcohol, 
the board recommends that we publicly reprimand Doherty for her misconduct in 
this case.  See Disciplinary Counsel v. Marshall, 143 Ohio St.3d 62, 2015-Ohio-
1187, 34 N.E.3d 110; In re Complaint Against Resnick, 108 Ohio St.3d 160, 2005-
Ohio-6800, 842 N.E.2d 31. 
{¶ 12} After independently reviewing the record and relevant precedent, we 
agree that a public reprimand is the appropriate sanction in this case. 
Conclusion 
{¶ 13} Accordingly, Rebecca L. Doherty is publicly reprimanded for the 
misconduct described above.  Costs are taxed to Doherty. 
Judgment accordingly. 
KENNEDY, FRENCH, FISCHER, DEWINE, DONNELLY, and STEWART, JJ., 
concur. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., not participating. 
_________________ 
January Term, 2020 
 
5
Joseph M. Caligiuri, Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. 
Buckingham, Doolittle & Burroughs, L.L.C., and Peter T. Cahoon, for 
respondent. 
_________________