Title: Disciplinary Counsel v. LoDico

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. LoDico, 118 Ohio St.3d 316, 2008-Ohio-2465.] 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. LODICO. 
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. LoDico, 118 Ohio St.3d 316, 2008-Ohio-2465.] 
Attorneys at law—Misconduct—Criminal convictions and prior disciplinary 
record—Indefinite suspension. 
(No. 2007-2378 – Submitted February 27, 2008 – Decided May 29, 2008.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 06-016. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Steven L. LoDico of Canton, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0041715, was admitted to the Ohio bar in 1989.  On September 
21, 2005, we suspended respondent from the practice of law for 18 months, with 
six months stayed on conditions, based on findings that he had engaged in 
unprofessional, undignified, and discourteous conduct in separate incidents before 
two common pleas court judges.  Disciplinary Counsel v. LoDico, 106 Ohio St.3d 
229, 2005-Ohio-4630, 833 N.E.2d 1235.  On February 23, 2006, respondent was 
suspended from the practice of law pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(5)(A)(4) upon 
notice that he had been convicted of a felony.  In re LoDico, 108 Ohio St.3d 1477, 
2006-Ohio-788, 842 N.E.2d 1056. 
{¶ 2} On March 28, 2006, relator, Disciplinary Counsel, filed a 
complaint charging respondent with violations of the Code of Professional 
Responsibility stemming from his felony conviction.  Respondent stipulated to the 
violations of the Disciplinary Rules.  A panel of the Board of Commissioners on 
Grievances and Discipline held a hearing and, based on the stipulations and other 
evidence, made findings of fact, conclusions of law, and a recommendation, 
which the board adopted. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
{¶ 3} The board recommends that we indefinitely suspend respondent 
from the practice of law, with no credit for the interim felony suspension.  We 
adopt the board’s findings of misconduct and recommended sanction. 
Stipulated Facts 
{¶ 4} On January 9, 2005, respondent was involved in an incident at a 
Canton, Ohio strip bar.  Respondent went to the bar with his girlfriend and two 
other women.  He had been drinking before arriving there.  As he was leaving the 
bar, respondent became involved in a physical altercation with six people in the 
parking lot.  At one point, he pointed a .45-caliber Glock pistol with a laser sight 
at all six people, one at a time. 
{¶ 5} Respondent was indicted on six counts of felonious assault with a 
firearm specification, each a second-degree felony, and one count of carrying a 
concealed weapon, a fourth-degree felony.  Following a bench trial, respondent 
was found guilty of carrying a concealed weapon and six misdemeanor counts of 
aggravated menacing.  The trial court sentenced respondent to community control, 
including 180 days in the Stark County jail and five years’ supervision with 
conditions, and a $5,000 fine. 
Stipulated Misconduct 
{¶ 6} Respondent admitted, and the board found, that respondent had 
violated DR 1-102(A)(3) (prohibiting illegal conduct involving moral turpitude) 
and 1-102(A)(6) (prohibiting conduct adversely reflecting on the lawyer’s fitness 
to practice law). 
Recommended Sanction 
{¶ 7} In recommending a sanction, 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.”). 
January Term, 2008 
3 
{¶ 8} As aggravating factors, the board noted respondent’s prior 
disciplinary offenses, BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(a), and his refusal to 
acknowledge the wrongful nature of his conduct, BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(g).  
In mitigation, the board found that respondent did not act with a selfish or 
dishonest motive.  BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(b).  The board also noted 
respondent’s cooperative attitude in the disciplinary proceedings, his character or 
reputation, and the imposition of criminal sanctions.  BCGD Proc.Reg. 
10(B)(2)(d), (e), and (f). 
{¶ 9} The parties stipulated that respondent should be indefinitely 
suspended from the practice of law and that reinstatement be conditioned upon 
respondent’s compliance with our order in his prior disciplinary case.  Respondent 
also requested that any suspension be retroactive to September 21, 2006, noting 
that he has not practiced law since he was suspended by this court on September 
21, 2005. 
{¶ 10} The board recommended that respondent be indefinitely suspended 
without credit for time served under his interim felony suspension, and with 
reinstatement conditioned upon his compliance with this court’s order in his prior 
disciplinary case, his Ohio Lawyers Assistance Program (“OLAP”) contract, and 
the terms of his community-control sanctions. 
Review 
{¶ 11} Respondent does not challenge the board’s findings of misconduct 
or the recommended sanction.  We have reviewed the board’s record and its 
report, and we agree that respondent violated DR 1-102(A)(3) and 1-102(A)(6). 
{¶ 12} We also agree that the board’s recommended sanction is 
appropriate.  Accordingly, respondent is indefinitely suspended from the practice 
of law, with no time credited for his interim felony suspension.  We further 
condition respondent’s reinstatement on his complete compliance with our prior 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
disciplinary order, his OLAP contract, and the terms of his community-control 
sanctions.  Costs are taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, 
C.J., 
and 
PFEIFER, 
LUNDBERG 
STRATTON, 
O’CONNOR, 
O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, and CUPP, JJ., concur. 
____________ 
 
Jonathan E. Coughlan, Disciplinary Counsel, and Stacy Solochek 
Beckman, Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. 
 
A. James Tsangeos, for respondent. 
____________