Title: Lorain Cty. Bar Assn. v. Paterson

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as Lorain Cty. Bar Assn. v. Paterson, 98 Ohio St.3d 446, 2003-Ohio-1638.] 
 
 
LORAIN COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION v. PATERSON. 
[Cite as Lorain Cty. Bar Assn. v. Paterson, 98 Ohio St.3d 446, 2003-Ohio-
1638.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Public reprimand — Failing to cooperate in 
a disciplinary investigation. 
(No. 2002-2219 — Submitted February 12, 2003 — Decided April 16, 2003.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 02-37. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶1} 
In 2001, two persons filed grievances with relator, Lorain County 
Bar Association, complaining about the representation provided by respondent, 
James J. Paterson of Lorain, Ohio, Attorney Registration No. 0062320, in certain 
criminal cases.  Respondent subsequently failed to comply with two subpoenas 
instructing him to appear before relator. 
{¶2} 
On June 17, 2002, relator filed a complaint charging respondent 
with having violated a Disciplinary Rule and a Rule for the Government of the 
Bar.  On October 23, 2002, the parties filed an untimely consent-to-discipline 
agreement.  See Rule 11 of the Rules and Regulations Governing Procedure on 
Complaints and Hearings Before the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court (“BCGD Proc.Reg.”).  The matter was submitted 
to a panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the 
Supreme Court upon the parties’ agreement, respondent’s affidavit, and 
respondent’s deposition.  The panel treated the untimely consent-to-discipline 
agreement as a stipulation.  BCGD Proc.Reg. 11(F).  The panel found the facts as 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
2
previously set forth and concluded that respondent had violated Gov.Bar R. 
V(4)(G) (failing to cooperate in a disciplinary investigation). 
{¶3} 
In mitigation, the panel noted that respondent had been admitted to 
the practice of law in 1993 and had no prior disciplinary record.  BCGD 
Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(a).  In addition, the panel found that when relator issued its 
subpoenas, respondent was in the process of closing his office and discontinuing 
the active practice of law. 
{¶4} 
The panel recommended, as the parties had agreed, that respondent 
be publicly reprimanded.  The board adopted the findings, conclusions, and 
recommendation of the panel, and further recommended that the costs of the 
proceedings be taxed to respondent. 
{¶5} 
We agree with the board that a public reprimand is appropriate for 
respondent’s violation of Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G).  See, e.g., Lorain Cty. Bar Assn. v. 
Ross, 97 Ohio St.3d 224, 2002-Ohio-5803, 778 N.E.2d 39, and Cuyahoga Cty. 
Bar Assn. v. Rubino (2000), 87 Ohio St.3d 466, 721 N.E.2d 986.  Respondent is 
hereby publicly reprimanded.  Costs are taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK, LUNDBERG 
STRATTON and O’CONNOR, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
 
Daniel A. Cook, for relator. 
 
James J. Paterson, pro se. 
__________________