Title: Disciplinary Counsel v. Wolf

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Wolf, 110 Ohio St.3d 411, 2006-Ohio-4709.] 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. WOLF. 
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Wolf, 110 Ohio St.3d 411, 2006-Ohio-4709.] 
Attorneys — Misconduct — Interim suspension of license to practice law for 
felony conviction — Prescription-drug dependence — Two-year suspension 
stayed on conditions. 
(No. 2006-0737 — Submitted May 24, 2006 — Decided September 27, 2006.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 05-071. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶1} 
Respondent, Mary Lou Wolf of Loveland, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0074613, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in May 
2002.  On June 30, 2005, upon receiving notice that respondent had been 
convicted of two felonies, we suspended her from the practice of law for an 
interim period pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(5)(A).  See In re Wolf, 106 Ohio St.3d 
1418, 2005-Ohio-3322, 830 N.E.2d 349. 
{¶2} 
On August 8, 2005, relator, Disciplinary Counsel, charged that 
respondent’s two convictions, both for procuring dangerous prescription drugs by 
deception in violation of R.C. 2925.22(A), constituted violations of the Code of 
Professional Responsibility.  A panel of the Board of Commissioners on 
Grievances and Discipline heard the cause, including the parties’ comprehensive 
stipulations, and made findings of misconduct and a recommendation, which the 
board adopted. 
Misconduct 
{¶3} 
In 1987, before her admission to the Ohio bar, respondent became 
a licensed registered nurse in Ohio.  On October 14, 2004, respondent pleaded 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
guilty to two violations of R.C. 2925.22(A), both felonies of the fifth degree, and 
was later sentenced to three years of community control under the supervision of 
the Clermont County Adult Probation Department.  Her nursing license was 
suspended in May 2005. 
{¶4} 
Respondent stipulated and the board found that her convictions and 
underlying conduct violated DR 1-102(A)(4) (a lawyer shall not engage in 
conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation) and 1-
102(A)(6) (a lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects upon her 
fitness to practice law). 
Recommended Sanction 
{¶5} 
In recommending a sanction for respondent’s misconduct, the 
board weighed the mitigating and aggravating factors of her case.  See 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”). 
{¶6} 
As to mitigation, the parties stipulated that respondent had no prior 
disciplinary record, had made timely, good-faith efforts to rectify the 
consequences of her misconduct, had cooperated in the disciplinary proceedings, 
and had already been sentenced for her crimes and that her drug dependence had 
contributed to cause her misconduct.  BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(a), (c), (d), (f), 
and (g).  The panel and board also noted the sincerity with which respondent 
expressed remorse for her misconduct and the lack of evidence to suggest that 
respondent’s crimes had harmed a client or patient in her care. 
{¶7} 
Elaborating on the extent of respondent’s drug dependence, the 
panel and board observed that respondent’s addiction began with a medical 
prescription in 1995.  For debilitating pain in her feet, respondent’s doctor had 
prescribed Ultram, a drug that turned out to have highly addictive qualities.  
Respondent’s reliance on the drug evolved into serious substance abuse, and near 
January Term, 2006 
3 
the end of 2003, she began to illegally authorize her own prescriptions.  By that 
time, respondent had stopped practicing law to care for her terminally ill mother, 
who died in November 2003.  After her arrest, respondent also stopped practicing 
as a nurse. 
{¶8} 
Respondent acknowledged that her prescription-drug use had led to 
criminal proceedings once before.  In 1998, before she became a lawyer, 
respondent received treatment in lieu of conviction after being charged with 
illegal drug procurement.  Respondent was at that time ordered to serve a two-
year probation, during which she was to receive treatment for drug dependence.  
Respondent completed the supervision period without further incident, and the 
charges against her were dismissed. 
{¶9} 
Although respondent stopped using Ultram in 1998, she relapsed in 
late 2003.  She has since rededicated herself to overcoming her addiction, and 
three witnesses shared their optimistic expectations for her recovery.  
Respondent’s sponsor at Alcoholics Anonymous (“AA”) testified that she has met 
with respondent weekly since April 2005 and that respondent is doing well in her 
recovery.  A registered nurse once employed by the Ohio Board of Nursing to 
oversee an anti-alcohol-abuse and anti-drug-abuse compliance unit for nurses 
reported that she had been helping with respondent’s recovery program since 
2004 and considered respondent’s prognosis for recovery excellent.  Last, 
Stephanie Krznarich, associate director and clinical director of the Ohio Lawyers 
Assistance Program (“OLAP”), reported that respondent had signed an OLAP 
recovery contract in May 2004 and has since complied with all the contract terms, 
has attended AA meetings three times a week, and has stayed in contact with 
sponsors and others as required. 
{¶10} Respondent also presented the deposition of her clinical 
psychologist, Dr. Kathleen Mack, whom she sees weekly.  Dr. Mack has been 
treating respondent since January 2004 and reported that respondent’s recovery 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
prognosis is good, given the intensity of her treatment, her level of remorse, and 
the serious consequences she has already faced.  Dr. Mack recommended that 
respondent be permitted to retain her law license. 
{¶11} Relator advocated that respondent receive a two-year suspension 
and that the suspension be stayed while respondent serves a probation with 
conditions, including monitoring of respondent’s practice.  Relator also suggested 
these conditions for the stay: (1) that respondent continue treatment with her 
psychologist, fully adhering to Dr. Mack’s advice; (2) that she continue her 
membership in and commitment to AA; (3) that she maintain her contract with 
OLAP and renew the contract during the suspension, if necessary, keeping in 
compliance with all contract terms; and (4) that she continue to comply with all 
court orders issued in the underlying criminal case.  Respondent agreed to abide 
by these conditions, but argued that monitoring was unnecessary, given all the 
other applicable forms of oversight. 
{¶12} The panel recommended that respondent be suspended from the 
practice of law for two years, effective as of June 30, 2005, the date of her interim 
suspension, and that the entire suspension be stayed on the conditions that she (1) 
continue treatment with her psychologist, fully adhering to Dr. Mack’s  advice; 
(2) continue her membership in and commitment to AA; (3) maintain her contract 
with OLAP and renew the contract during the suspension, if necessary, keeping in 
compliance with all contract terms; and (4) continue to comply with all court 
orders issued in the underlying criminal case.  Adopting the panel’s report, the 
board also recommended a two-year conditionally stayed suspension, effective as 
of June 30, 2005.  Neither party objects to this recommendation. 
Review 
{¶13} We adopt the board’s findings that respondent violated DR 1-
102(A)(4) and 1-102(A)(6).  Based on the mitigating and aggravating factors 
determined by the board, we also accept the recommended sanction. 
January Term, 2006 
5 
{¶14} In Disciplinary Counsel v. May, 106 Ohio St.3d 385, 2005-Ohio-
5320, 835 N.E.2d 372, another lawyer’s addiction to a painkilling prescription 
drug resulted in his being charged with two violations of R.C. 2925.22(A).  We 
ordered a two-year suspension but stayed the suspension on conditions similar to 
those recommended here because of the significant mitigating effect of the 
lawyer’s efforts to overcome his drug dependence.  The fact that respondent has 
been convicted for her crimes distinguishes this case somewhat from May; 
nevertheless, we share the board’s confidence in her commitment to recovery and 
also find a two-year, conditionally stayed suspension appropriate in this case. 
{¶15} Respondent is therefore suspended from the practice of law in 
Ohio for two years, effective June 30, 2005.  The suspension is stayed on the 
conditions that she (1) continue treatment with her psychologist, fully adhering to 
Dr. Mack’s advice; (2) continue her membership in and commitment to AA; (3) 
maintain her contract with OLAP and renew the contract during the suspension, if 
necessary, keeping in compliance with all contract terms; and (4) continue to 
comply with all court orders issued in the underlying criminal case.  If respondent 
fails to comply with the conditions of the stay, the stay will be lifted, and 
respondent shall serve the entire two-year suspension. 
{¶16} Costs are taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., RESNICK, PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’CONNOR, 
O’DONNELL and LANZINGER, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
 
Jonathan E. Coughlan, Disciplinary Counsel, Lori J. Brown, First 
Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, and Carol A. Costa, Assistant Disciplinary 
Counsel, for relator. 
 
Dianna M. Anelli, for respondent. 
______________________