Title: Disciplinary Counsel v. Garrity

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Garrity, 98 Ohio St.3d 317, 2003-Ohio-740.] 
 
 
OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. GARRITY. 
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Garrity, 98 Ohio St.3d 317, 2003-Ohio-740.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Indefinite suspension — Engaging in illegal 
conduct involving moral turpitude — Engaging in conduct involving 
dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation — Engaging in conduct 
adversely reflecting on fitness to practice law. 
(No. 2002-1776 — Submitted January 8, 2003 — Decided March 5, 2003.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Count, No. 01-93. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶1} 
Respondent, Robert J. Garrity of Lakewood, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0070449, was admitted to the Ohio bar in 1999.  On October 30, 
2001, we suspended his license to practice law for an interim period pursuant to 
Gov.Bar R. V(5)(A)(4) after receiving notice that he had been convicted of five 
felonies.  See In re Garrity (2001), 93 Ohio St.3d 1467, 757 N.E.2d 378. 
{¶2} 
On November 28, 2001, relator, Disciplinary Counsel, filed a 
complaint charging respondent with various violations of the Code of Professional 
Responsibility.  A panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline heard the cause and, on the basis of comprehensive stipulations and 
other evidence, made the following findings. 
{¶3} 
In addition to being a licensed attorney, respondent was once a 
licensed pharmacist in Illinois and Ohio.  He eventually became addicted to some 
of the prescription medications that he dispensed, and his Illinois pharmacy 
license was suspended for six months for illegal drug possession.  He then began 
law school in Ohio.  Respondent’s Illinois license was later restored, he obtained 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
his Ohio pharmacy license through reciprocity, and he passed the Ohio bar exam.  
However, during December 2000, respondent stole a variety of Schedule II 
controlled substances for his personal use while working for a Lakewood 
pharmacy.  See R.C. 3719.41. 
{¶4} 
On June 28, 2001, respondent pleaded guilty to five felony counts 
of prescription drug theft in violation of R.C. 2913.02.  The Cuyahoga County 
Court of Common Pleas sentenced him to six months in prison on two counts, 
with the sentences to be served concurrently.  For the remaining counts, the court 
sentenced respondent to five years’ probation to begin upon his release from 
prison.  Respondent was also ordered to pay $800 in restitution to his former 
employer. 
{¶5} 
On May 13, 2002, the Ohio State Board of Pharmacy found that 
respondent was addicted to controlled substances, and his license, which had been 
on probation since 1998 for prior drug-related infractions, was permanently 
revoked.  Respondent was granted judicial release from prison on December 21, 
2001, and was on probation at the time of the hearing. 
{¶6} 
The parties stipulated that respondent had violated DR 1-102(A)(3) 
(engaging in illegal conduct involving moral turpitude), (4) (engaging in conduct 
involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation), and (6) (engaging in 
conduct that adversely reflects on an attorney’s fitness to practice law), and the 
panel found this misconduct.  In recommending a sanction, the panel considered 
mitigation stipulations that respondent had cooperated fully in investigations 
conducted by relator, law enforcement authorities, and the Ohio State Board of 
Pharmacy, had dutifully maintained sobriety since his arrest in January 2001, and 
had become a dedicated volunteer.  Moreover, respondent had already made 
restitution to his former employer and had not harmed any clients with his 
misconduct.  The panel also considered the overwhelming support shown by 
respondent’s mentors, counselors, and acquaintances, all of whom recounted his 
January Term, 2003 
3 
impressive efforts toward his recovery and some of whom described respondent’s 
contributions to their own recovery. 
{¶7} 
However, two panel members had grave concerns about 
respondent’s long history of substance-abuse treatment, his repeated relapses, and 
what they considered to be his lack of credibility and genuine contrition for his 
past transgressions.  Thus, while one panel member was convinced of 
respondent’s commitment to his treatment plan and recovery, the other two panel 
members suspected his sincerity.  They feared that respondent would be prone to 
relapse and the temptation to steal again, only this time from clients. 
{¶8} 
A majority of the panel recommended that respondent be 
permanently disbarred from the practice of law in Ohio.  The dissenting panel 
member recommended, consistent with the parties’ stipulated suggestion, that 
respondent’s license be suspended indefinitely, with the suspension to have 
commenced as of October 30, 2001, the date of our earlier interim suspension 
order.  The board adopted the panel’s findings of misconduct, but it rejected the 
majority recommendation to disbar.  The board instead recommended that 
respondent be suspended indefinitely from the practice of law and that he be 
required to submit to periodic drug screenings during this suspension to ensure 
compliance with his Ohio Lawyers Assistance Program, Inc. (“OLAP”) sobriety 
contract. 
{¶9} 
We agree with the board’s findings that respondent violated DR 1-
102(A)(3), (4), and (6) and that an indefinite suspension, conditioned as 
recommended, is appropriate.  Respondent is 43 years old and the victim of a 
consuming addiction that began while he was working as a young pharmacist in 
his father’s pharmacy in Illinois.  He was eventually convicted of illegal 
possession of prescription medication and permitted to seek medical treatment in 
lieu of conviction.  He did not commit to his recovery, however, and by 1995, his 
father banished him from the pharmacy. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
{¶10} Jobless and with his second marriage failing, respondent turned to 
crack cocaine.  He was arrested again for possession, convicted, and spent 30 days 
in a county jail.  His Illinois pharmacy license was also suspended for six months.  
Respondent claims to have remained drug-free after these events.  In any case, he 
subsequently graduated from law school in Ohio.  But he eventually returned to 
pharmacy when his Illinois license was restored and Ohio granted him reciprocity.  
He also returned to drug abuse for two months before his arrest and convictions in 
2001. 
{¶11} By all accounts of record, including a testimonial from the 
executive director of OLAP, respondent has become since his prison term a model 
for others attempting to overcome addiction.  He has pursued zealously his 
recovery and has assisted others on their way to sobriety.  Moreover, he has 
promised to continue with this work and to use his legal expertise to further this 
mission if he is ever permitted to return to the practice of law. 
{¶12} Respondent’s misconduct manifests a serious breach of trust and is 
cause for the concern expressed by the panel majority.  However, the sanction we 
impose is appropriately tempered because respondent has demonstrated a 
commitment to sobriety, cooperated in investigations leading to and arising out of 
drug-related convictions, and did not compromise any client’s interest as a result 
of his addiction.  See Akron Bar Assn. v. Thomas (1999), 84 Ohio St.3d 395, 704 
N.E.2d 562.  These mitigating considerations, as well as the confidence expressed 
in respondent’s progress and the work he has done for others, convince us that 
disbarment is too severe and that an indefinite suspension is warranted. 
{¶13} Accordingly, respondent is hereby suspended indefinitely from the 
practice of law in Ohio, with the condition that he submit to periodic drug 
screening as recommended by the board.  Costs are taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
January Term, 2003 
5 
 
MOYER, C.J., RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK, LUNDBERG 
STRATTON and O’CONNOR, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
 
Jonathan E. Coughlan, Disciplinary Counsel, and Kevin L. Williams, 
Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. 
 
John A. Fatica, for respondent. 
__________________