Title: Akron Bar Assn. v. Gatskie

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as Akron Bar Assn. v. Gatskie, 105 Ohio St.3d 327, 2005-Ohio-1828.] 
 
 
AKRON BAR ASSOCIATION v. GATSKIE. 
[Cite as Akron Bar Assn. v. Gatskie,  
105 Ohio St.3d 327, 2005-Ohio-1828.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Six-month suspension with entire six months 
stayed on condition — Engaging in conduct that adversely reflects on 
attorney’s fitness to practice law — Attorney pleaded guilty to several 
charges filed against him by his adult son. 
(No. 2004-1807 — Submitted January 12, 2005 — Decided May 4, 2005.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 03-102. 
_______________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶1} 
Respondent, James M. Gatskie Sr., of Akron, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0024727, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1974.  
On December 8, 2003, relator, Akron Bar Association, charged respondent with 
having violated the Code of Professional Responsibility.  A panel of the Board of 
Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline heard the cause and, based on 
stipulations and other evidence, made findings of misconduct and a 
recommendation, all of which the board adopted. 
Misconduct 
{¶2} 
Respondent, a former police officer, practiced law for 21 years as a 
public defender and is now in private practice.  On October 30, 2002, after his 
adult son complained to authorities about threatening remarks that respondent had 
allegedly made, respondent was arrested at his home.  At the time of his arrest, 
respondent had a large gun collection in his house and was also intoxicated. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
{¶3} 
Respondent subsequently pleaded guilty in Summit County 
Common Pleas Court to violating R.C. 2919.25 (domestic violence), a fourth-
degree misdemeanor; R.C. 2923.13(A)(4) (possession of weapons while under a 
disability, i.e., chronic alcoholism), a fifth-degree felony; R.C. 2903.211 
(menacing by stalking), a fifth-degree felony; and R.C. 2921.04(B) (attempted 
intimidation of a crime victim or witness), a misdemeanor.  The weapons charge 
to which respondent pleaded guilty apparently resulted from his having guns in 
his home.  Respondent assured the panel that the other charges against him did 
not involve weapons. 
{¶4} 
The incidents that led to respondent’s arrest stemmed from a 
volatile relationship between respondent and his son, with whom respondent no 
longer has contact.  At the panel hearing, respondent testified that he had initially 
been told that a series of misdemeanor charges had been brought against him, 
including a domestic-violence charge that mandated his arrest, and he had 
arranged to sign the summons in lieu of arrest.  According to respondent, his son 
then embellished his story, and felony indictments were also handed down. 
{¶5} 
For the domestic-violence conviction, respondent was sentenced to 
a 30-day jail term, all of which was suspended.  On February 28, 2003, the court 
granted respondent’s motion for treatment in lieu of conviction as to the other 
offenses and ordered a stay in the criminal proceedings for a period not to exceed 
three years. 
{¶6} 
Thereafter, respondent successfully completed an inpatient 
alcoholism-treatment program at Glenbeigh Hospital.  On April 28, 2003, 
respondent voluntarily entered into an agreement with the Ohio Lawyers 
Assistance Program (“OLAP”) to help him sustain his sobriety.  Respondent has 
since complied with all the terms of the Summit County Common Pleas Court 
order and his OLAP contract. 
January Term, 2005 
3 
{¶7} 
Based on the foregoing facts, the parties stipulated and the board 
found that respondent had violated DR 1-102(A)(6), which prohibits a lawyer 
from engaging in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law. 
Sanction 
{¶8} 
In recommending a sanction for this misconduct, the board 
considered 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.”).  
The board found that respondent had no prior disciplinary offenses and had not 
acted out of dishonesty or selfishness.  See BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(a) and (b).  
The board found that there had not been a pattern of misconduct, that respondent 
had been charged with violating only one Disciplinary Rule, that respondent had 
cooperated in the disciplinary process, and that he had forthrightly acknowledged 
the wrongfulness of his conduct.  See BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(d) and 
10(B)(1)(c), (d), and (g).  In addition, the board found that there was no restitution 
to be made and that respondent had a good reputation in his community.  BCGD 
Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(c) and (e).  A letter from the judge who presided over his 
criminal case notes that respondent “continues to represent his clients with 
diligence without any complaints from the bench.” 
{¶9} 
The Summit County Common Pleas Court determined that 
respondent’s alcohol abuse contributed to his criminal activity, and the board 
agreed with that determination.  See BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(g).  The board 
also considered the price respondent had already paid for his misconduct.  BCGD 
Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(f).  Respondent spent 93 days in jail as a result of the charges 
against him.  His gun collection, which he estimated to be worth $7,500, was 
confiscated by the state.  Respondent’s care at Glenbeigh Hospital, a residential 
treatment facility, cost him $6,200. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
{¶10} Beyond this, respondent submitted that he has been sober since 
November 2002 and that he had remarried within the last few years.  He 
explained that his new wife strongly supports his recovery and also helps him 
manage the home office from which he now practices.  Moreover, in addition to 
treatment for his alcoholism, respondent also completed anger-management and 
family counseling.  His probation officer related that respondent has “made 
significant changes in his lifestyle and his way of thinking.” 
{¶11} As a sanction for his misconduct, respondent suggests a one-year 
suspension from the practice of law, all stayed.  The panel noted that respondent 
had spent 93 days in jail, forfeited $7,500 worth of property, paid $6,200 for 
treatment, and is in full compliance with his OLAP agreement and the Summit 
County Common Pleas Court order.  In view of these facts, the panel 
recommended a six-month suspension, with the entire suspension stayed on the 
condition that respondent continue to comply with his OLAP contract and the 
terms set forth in the Summit County court order.  The board adopted the panel’s 
findings and recommendation. 
{¶12} Upon review, we agree that respondent violated DR 1-102(A)(6) 
and that the sanction recommended by the board is appropriate.  Accordingly,   
respondent is hereby suspended from the practice of law in Ohio for six months; 
however, the entire six-month suspension is stayed on the condition that 
respondent continue to comply with his OLAP contract and the Summit County 
Common Pleas Court order.  If respondent fails to comply with either, the stay 
shall be lifted and respondent shall serve the entire six-month suspension.  Costs 
are taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
RESNICK, PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’DONNELL and LANZINGER, 
JJ., concur. 
 
MOYER, C.J., and O’CONNOR, J., dissent. 
January Term, 2005 
5 
__________________ 
 
MOYER, C.J., dissenting. 
{¶13} I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion with respect to the 
sanction imposed on respondent. 
{¶14} The parties had stipulated to a one-year suspension from the 
practice of law, all stayed.  However, the majority elects to impose a less severe 
sanction, in part because respondent’s gun collection was forfeited to the state and 
because respondent paid $6,200 to participate in an alcoholism-treatment 
program.  I do not believe that these facts warrant imposition of a sanction that is 
less severe than the one agreed to by the parties. 
{¶15} For this reason, and because I believe the sanction to which the 
parties stipulated was appropriate given respondent’s misconduct, I would 
suspend respondent from the practice of law for one year, stayed on the conditions 
imposed by the majority. 
 
O’CONNOR, J., concurs in the foregoing dissenting opinion. 
__________________ 
 
Thomas B. Squires, Kevin Sanislo, and John Martin, for relator. 
 
George M. Miller, for respondent. 
______________________