Title: Disciplinary Counsel v. West

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. West, 85 Ohio St.3d 5, 1999-Ohio-197.] 
 
 
 
 
 
OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. WEST. 
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. West (1999), 85 Ohio St.3d 5.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Eighteen-month suspension with twelve months 
of sanction stayed on conditions — Falsely accusing a judge of criminal 
misconduct. 
(No. 98-2262 — Submitted December 16, 1998 — Decided March 3, 1999.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 97-61. 
 
In June 1997, relator, Office of Disciplinary Counsel, filed a complaint 
charging respondent, Patrick Aloysius Thomas West of Columbus, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0029570, with violating two Disciplinary Rules and one Rule for 
the Government of the Bar by falsely accusing a judge of criminal misconduct.  
After respondent filed an answer and the parties submitted stipulations and 
exhibits, a panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of 
the Supreme Court (“board”) held a hearing on the matter. 
 
Based on the testimony, stipulations, and exhibits, the panel found that in 
1995 and 1996, respondent represented Michael E. Carrico in bankruptcy 
proceedings before Judge Charles M. Caldwell of the United States Bankruptcy 
Court, Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division.  In March 1996, respondent 
requested that Judge Caldwell disqualify himself from the bankruptcy case.  After 
Judge Caldwell denied respondent’s motion, respondent filed a petition for a writ 
of mandamus and a motion for a temporary restraining order in the federal district 
court to challenge Judge Caldwell’s refusal to recuse himself. 
 
The panel further found that at a hearing in the federal district court, 
respondent alleged that Judge Caldwell had a financial interest in the bankruptcy 
 
 
2
case because the judge received kickbacks from the bankruptcy trustee, whose fees 
were increased by the scheduling of numerous unnecessary hearings.  Respondent 
was unable to substantiate his accusations against Judge Caldwell and the 
bankruptcy trustee at either the federal district court proceeding or his disciplinary 
hearing.  In fact, at the disciplinary hearing, respondent conceded that Judge 
Caldwell had no financial interest in the bankruptcy case.  The bankruptcy trustee 
testified at both the federal district court and disciplinary proceedings that neither 
he nor Judge Caldwell had committed any of the misconduct alleged by 
respondent. 
 
The panel concluded that respondent violated DR 8-102(B) (knowingly 
making a false accusation against a judge) by alleging in federal court that Judge 
Caldwell had been guilty of criminal misconduct in the bankruptcy case. 
 
In mitigation, the panel found that respondent suffered from clinical 
depression, that he was undergoing therapy with a psychiatrist at a Veterans 
Administration Outpatient Clinic, and that he had been taking prescribed 
medication since September 1997 to control his depression.  According to 
respondent, his untreated depression contributed to his unfounded suspicions and 
allegations against Judge Caldwell. 
 
Based on this mitigating evidence, the panel recommended that respondent 
be suspended from the practice of law in Ohio for eighteen months, with twelve 
months stayed on the conditions that he continue his treatment and submit to 
monitoring by the Columbus Bar Association or another agency deemed 
appropriate by the court.  The panel further recommended that before respondent 
resumes practicing law in Ohio, he must demonstrate that his treatment enables 
him to properly and effectively practice law.  The board adopted the panel’s 
findings, conclusions, and recommendation. 
 
 
3
__________________ 
 
Jonathan E. Coughlan, Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. 
 
Patrick A.T. West, pro se. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam.  We adopt the board’s findings of fact and conclusions of law.  
Respect for the law and for judicial officers who interpret and apply the law is the 
sine qua non of an attorney’s right to continue to practice law in Ohio.  
Disciplinary Counsel v. Trumbo (1996), 76 Ohio St.3d 369, 372, 667 N.E.2d 
1186, 1188-1189.  An attorney who publicly criticizes a judge “should be certain 
of the merit of [the] complaint, use appropriate language, and avoid petty 
criticisms, for unrestrained and intemperate statements tend to lessen public 
confidence in our legal system.”  EC 8-6. 
 
Here, respondent’s conduct in knowingly making a false accusation against 
a judge violated DR 8-102(B).  Because this conduct undermines the integrity of 
the judicial system, a suspension is an appropriate penalty.  See Columbus Bar 
Assn. v. Hartwell (1988), 35 Ohio St.3d 258, 260, 520 N.E.2d 226, 227.  We 
therefore adopt the board’s recommendation.  Respondent is suspended from the 
practice of law in Ohio for eighteen months, with twelve months stayed provided 
that he continue his psychiatric treatment and submit to monitoring by the 
Columbus Bar Association.  In addition, before being permitted to resume 
practicing law in Ohio, respondent must submit evidence to the court that his 
treatment enables him to properly and effectively practice law.  Costs taxed to 
respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER and COOK, JJ., 
concur. 
 
 
4
 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, J., not participating.