Title: Columbus Bar Assn. v. Larkin

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
Columbus Bar Assn. v. Larkin, Slip Opinion No. 2011-Ohio-762.] 
 
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. 2011-OHIO-762 
COLUMBUS BAR ASSOCIATION. v. LARKIN. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as Columbus Bar Assn. v. Larkin,  
Slip Opinion No. 2011-Ohio-762.] 
Attorney misconduct, including commission of an illegal act that reflects 
adversely on the lawyer’s honesty or trustworthiness — Indefinite license 
suspension. 
(No. 2010-1840 — Submitted January 4, 2011 — Decided February 23, 2011.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 09-097. 
__________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Janet L. Larkin of Columbus, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0073610, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 2001.  
We suspended respondent’s license in November 2009 for her failure to register 
for the 2009/2011 attorney-registration biennium.  In re Attorney Registration 
Suspension of Larkin, 123 Ohio St.3d 1475, 2009-Ohio-5786, 915 N.E.2d 1256.  
In December 2009, relator, Columbus Bar Association, filed a complaint charging 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
her with violations of the Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct arising from her 
alcohol and drug addiction and her indictment for possession of heroin and 
cocaine.  During the pendency of this action, she has also been sanctioned and 
suspended for failing to comply with the continuing-legal-education requirements 
set forth in Gov.Bar R. X(3).  In re Continuing Legal Edn. Suspension of Larkin, 
127 Ohio St.3d 1467 2010-Ohio-6302, 938 N.E.2d 368. 
{¶ 2} Although relator’s complaint was served by certified mail on 
December 8, 2009, at the address respondent has registered with the Office of 
Attorney Services, she failed to file an answer.  Relator filed a motion for default 
supported by documentary evidence, including the transcript of respondent’s 
August 2009 deposition. 
{¶ 3} A master commissioner appointed by the board considered the 
motion for default and prepared a report recommending that respondent be 
indefinitely suspended.  The board adopted the master commissioner’s findings 
that the materials offered in support of the default motion were sufficient and that 
respondent’s conduct had violated the ethical duties incumbent upon Ohio 
lawyers. 
{¶ 4} In accordance with the master commissioner’s report, the board 
recommends that we indefinitely suspend respondent from the practice of law and 
condition her reinstatement upon submission of proof that she has successfully 
completed treatment for her substance abuse and is capable of returning to the 
competent, ethical, and professional practice of law.  We accept the board’s 
findings of fact and misconduct and agree that an indefinite suspension is the 
appropriate sanction. 
Misconduct 
{¶ 5} On January 3, 2009, respondent was seriously injured in an 
automobile accident.  While investigating the accident, Columbus police officers 
discovered a used crack-cocaine pipe and used heroin syringes in respondent’s 
January Term, 2011 
3 
 
automobile.  In February 2009, a Franklin County grand jury indicted respondent 
on one count of possession of heroin and one count of possession of cocaine, both 
in violation of R.C. 2925.11.  Respondent entered into a diversion program that 
required her to attend drug and alcohol counseling, to undergo drug screening, 
and to abstain from using drugs and alcohol.  But when respondent failed to 
comply with the terms of the program, the trial judge returned her criminal case to 
the court’s active docket. 
{¶ 6} At her deposition, respondent testified that she has a long-standing 
problem with drugs and alcohol and that the treatment she has received for this 
problem has been unsuccessful.  She admitted that at the time of her automobile 
accident, she possessed drug paraphernalia that contained residue of heroin and 
cocaine.  She further testified that she had been on her way to see the person who 
had encouraged her to use illegal drugs.  Although relator urged respondent to 
contact the Ohio Lawyers Assistance Program (“OLAP”) during the course of 
these proceedings, she has had no contact with that program since August 2007.  
Moreover, respondent’s participation in the disciplinary process was limited to 
her attendance at her deposition and the submission of one letter and one e-mail to 
relator. 
{¶ 7} The master commissioner and board found, and we agree, that this 
evidence clearly and convincingly established respondent’s violation of 
Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(b) (prohibiting a lawyer from committing an illegal act that 
reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty or trustworthiness) and (h) (prohibiting 
a lawyer from engaging in conduct that adversely reflects on the lawyer’s fitness 
to practice law). 
Sanction 
{¶ 8} When imposing sanctions for attorney misconduct, we consider 
relevant factors, including the ethical duties that the lawyer violated and the 
sanctions imposed in similar cases.  Stark Cty. Bar Assn. v. Buttacavoli, 96 Ohio 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
St.3d 424, 2002-Ohio-4743, 775 N.E.2d 818, ¶ 16.  In making a final 
determination, we also weigh evidence of the aggravating and mitigating factors 
listed in Section 10(B) of the Rules and Regulations Governing Procedure on 
Complaints and Hearings Before the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline (“BCGD Proc.Reg.”).  Disciplinary Counsel v. Broeren, 115 Ohio 
St.3d 473, 2007-Ohio-5251, 875 N.E.2d 935, ¶ 21. 
{¶ 9} As aggravating factors, the master commissioner and board found, 
and we agree, that respondent had engaged in a pattern of misconduct involving 
multiple offenses and failed to cooperate in the disciplinary process after her 
deposition.  BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(c), (d), and (e).  We also find that 
respondent has a prior disciplinary record for failure to comply with attorney-
registration requirements.  BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(a).  See also Disciplinary 
Counsel v. Mitchell, 124 Ohio St.3d 266, 2010-Ohio-135, 921 N.E.2d 634, ¶ 8, 
and Akron Bar Assn. v. Paulson, 112 Ohio St.3d 334, 2006-Ohio-6678, 859 
N.E.2d 932, ¶ 12 (both holding that attorney-registration violations are prior 
disciplinary offenses pursuant to BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(a)).  But we reject the 
master commissioner’s and board’s findings that the imposition of other penalties 
or sanctions is a mitigating factor, because the record contains no evidence that 
any other penalty or sanction has been imposed. 
{¶ 10} Relator has argued that an indefinite suspension from the practice 
of law will adequately protect the public while leaving open the possibility that 
with proper rehabilitation respondent will one day be able to resume the practice 
of law.  Citing our imposition of indefinite suspensions in Disciplinary Counsel v. 
Ridenbaugh, 122 Ohio St.3d 583, 2009-Ohio-4091, 914 N.E.2d 443, Disciplinary 
Counsel v. Wolanin, 121 Ohio St.3d 390, 2009-Ohio-1393, 904 N.E.2d 879, and 
Disciplinary Counsel v. Young, 102 Ohio St.3d 113, 2004-Ohio-1809, 807 N.E.2d 
317, the master commissioner and board accepted relator’s recommended 
sanction.  They observed that in each of those cases there was evidence of mental 
January Term, 2011 
5 
 
illness or substance abuse but that the condition had not qualified as a mitigating 
factor, because the respondents had failed to submit evidence that the condition 
had contributed to their misconduct, that the condition had been successfully 
treated, and that they were capable of returning to the competent, ethical, and 
professional practice of law.  See BCGD 10(B)(2)(g)(i) through (iv); Ridenbaugh 
at ¶ 24-40; Wolanin at ¶ 12; Young at ¶ 12.  Therefore, the master commissioner 
and board adopted relator’s recommended sanction. 
{¶ 11} Having reviewed the record, weighed the aggravating and 
mitigating factors, and considered the sanctions imposed for comparable conduct, 
we adopt the board’s recommended sanction of an indefinite suspension.  As we 
have previously recognized, our duty is not only to protect the public from 
attorneys who are not ethically fit to practice law, but also to “take care not to 
deprive the public of attorneys who, through rehabilitation, may be able to 
ethically and competently serve in a professional capacity.”  Young at ¶ 15, citing 
Ohio State Bar Assn. v. Johnson, 96 Ohio St.3d 192, 2002-Ohio-3998, 772 N.E.2d 
1184, at ¶ 7. 
{¶ 12} Accordingly, Janet L. Larkin is indefinitely suspended from the 
practice of law in the state of Ohio, and reinstatement shall be conditioned upon 
proof that she has successfully completed treatment for substance abuse and is 
capable of returning to the competent, ethical, and professional practice of law.  
Costs are taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’DONNELL, 
LANZINGER, CUPP, and MCGEE BROWN, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
Bruce A. Campbell, Bar Counsel, A. Alysha Clous, Assistant Bar Counsel, 
and Margaret L. Blackmore, for relator. 
______________________