Title: Disciplinary Counsel v. Martin

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

OPINIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO                               
     The full texts of the opinions of the Supreme Court of                      
Ohio are being transmitted electronically beginning May 27,                      
1992, pursuant to a pilot project implemented by Chief Justice                   
Thomas J. Moyer.                                                                 
     Please call any errors to the attention of the Reporter's                   
Office of the Supreme Court of Ohio.  Attention:  Walter S.                      
Kobalka, Reporter, or Deborah J. Barrett, Administrative                         
Assistant.  Tel.:  (614) 466-4961; in Ohio 1-800-826-9010.                       
Your comments on this pilot project are also welcome.                            
     NOTE:  Corrections may be made by the Supreme Court to the                  
full texts of the opinions after they have been released                         
electronically to the public.  The reader is therefore advised                   
to check the bound volumes of Ohio St.3d published by West                       
Publishing Company for the final versions of these opinions.                     
The advance sheets to Ohio St.3d will also contain the volume                    
and page numbers where the opinions will be found in the bound                   
volumes of the Ohio Official Reports.                                            
                                                                                 
Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Martin.                                        
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Martin (1994),      0hio                        
St.3d       .]                                                                   
Attorneys at law -- Misconduct -- One-year suspension with last                  
     six months stayed with conditions -- Conviction for drug                    
     abuse.                                                                      
     (No. 94-492 -- Submitted April 19, 1994 -- Decided June                     
22, 1994.                                                                        
     On Certified Report by the Board of Commissioners on                        
Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 93-44.                       
     In a complaint filed on April 16, 1993, relator, Office of                  
Disciplinary Counsel, charged that respondent, Linda Sue Martin                  
of Youngstown, Ohio, Attorney Registration No. 0025597, had                      
violated DR 1-102(A)(3) (engaging in illegal conduct involving                   
moral turpitude) and 1-102(A)(6) (engaging in conduct that                       
adversely reflects on attorney's fitness to practice law).                       
Respondent stipulated to her conviction for having violated                      
R.C. 2925.11 (drug abuse), the fourth-degree felony on which                     
both counts of misconduct were based.1  The matter was heard by                  
a panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and                          
Discipline of the Supreme Court on December 9, 1993.                             
     The parties stipulated to the events underlying                             
respondent's conviction as follows:                                              
     "* * * On November 7, 1989, at 2:30 a.m., Respondent was                    
stopped for a traffic violation.  An outstanding arrest warrant                  
for failing to appear on a prior traffic incident was still                      
open.  During a search of Respondent's person, a piece of paper                  
containing cocaine was found in her jacket pocket.                               
     "* * * On January 29, 1990, Respondent was indicted by the                  
Cuyahoga County Grand Jury for one count of Drug Abuse * * * in                  
violation fo ORC 2925.11.  On April 30, 1990, Respondent filed                   
a Motion for Treatment in Lieu of Conviction (ORC 2951.04.1),                    
which was granted on October 24, 1990.  Respondent was ordered                   
into rehabilition for two years, including a drug treatment                      
program.                                                                         
     "* * * Approximately four (4) months later, Respondent                      
failed to pass a urinalysis drug screen.  On February 22, 1991,                  
she was ordered into an in-patient treatment program.                            
     "* * * On August 1, 1991, Respondent tested positive for                    
cocaine again[,] which led to her being found in violation of                    
her probation on August 12, 1991.  The Court found her guilty                    
of the original Drug Abuse charge, then sentenced [her] to the                   
Ohio Reformatory for Women for six months.  Her sentence was                     
suspended, and she was placed on probation for two years,                        
ordered to attend AA/NA [Alcoholics Anonymous and Narcotics                      
Anonymous] and to complete an in-patient drug program.                           
Respondent has successfully completed probation."                                
     At the hearing, respondent testified about her life prior                   
to her conviction and the changes she has made since that                        
time.  Respondent graduated from law school in December 1981,                    
but has never practiced law.  She instead worked as a sales                      
manager, and later, a stock broker until she was laid off in                     
1988.  Respondent then became a restaurant bartender, the job                    
she held at the time of of her arrest.                                           
     Respondent spent nineteen days in jail awaiting a hearing                   
after violating her probation the second time.  When her                         
sentence was suspended, she was ordered to complete a minimum                    
stay of ninety days at a halfway house.  She stayed there                        
voluntarily for three more months, receiving counseling and                      
group therapy for what she recognized to be a drug and alcohol                   
addiction.  Respondent moved back in with her parents after                      
leaving the halfway house in February 1992.                                      
     Respondent continued to attend counseling sessions twice a                  
week at the halfway house for more than one year after her                       
release.  Now she regularly attends AA meetings and is a                         
sponsor of other members.  In August 1993, she entered the Ohio                  
Lawyers' Assistance Program, which requires her to submit to                     
random substance abuse testing.  Respondent was released from                    
her probation in December 1992, eight months early, and was                      
described by her parole officer as a model of compliance.                        
     Numerous testimonials as to respondent's prognosis for                      
continued recovery were submitted for the panel's                                
consideration.  Respondent's professional acquaintances,                         
friends, and family offered their support and confidence in her                  
ability to remain drug and alcohol free.  Respondent also                        
described her renewed commitment to practicing law.                              
     The panel found that respondent had violated the                            
Disciplinary Rules as charged in the complaint.  Due to the                      
evidence of respondent's recovery, it accepted a joint                           
recommendation from the parties that she be suspended from the                   
practice of law for one year, with six months of that period to                  
be suspended on the condition that she completes a probation                     
period.  However, the panel decided in favor of a three-year                     
probation period, rather than the two-year probation                             
recommended jointly, during which respondent is to maintain her                  
membership in the Ohio Lawyers' Assistance Program, to continue                  
her regular attendance at AA/NA meetings, and to periodically                    
submit to random testing for drug and alcohol use.  The panel                    
also recommended that respondent be given credit for the                         
interim suspension imposed on July 9, 1993 as a result of her                    
conviction.                                                                      
     The board adopted the panel's findings and its                              
recommendation.                                                                  
                                                                                 
     Geoffrey Stern, Disciplinary Counsel, and Sally Ann Steuk,                  
Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator.                                     
     Charles W. Kettlewell, for respondent.                                      
                                                                                 
     Per Curiam.  We have reviewed the record and concur in the                  
board's findings and recommendation, except for the proposed                     
credit for respondent's interim suspension.  Therefore, we find                  
that Linda Sue Martin violated DR 1-102(A)(3) and (6), and she                   
is hereby suspended from the practice of law for one year, with                  
the last six months of that period to be stayed in favor of the                  
probation period and conditions recommended by the board.                        
Costs taxed to respondent.                                                       
                                     Judgment accordingly.                       
     Moyer, C.J., A.W. Sweeney, Douglas, Wright,  Resnick, F.E.                  
Sweeney and Pfeifer, JJ., concur.                                                
                                                                                 
FOOTNOTE                                                                         
1     Respondent was found guilty of the drug abuse charge in                    
August 1991, but the conviction was not reported by the judge                    
who entered it as required by former Gov. Bar R. V(9)(a)(i),                     
now Gov.Bar R. V(5)(A)(1).  Thus, the suspension authorized by                   
Gov.Bar R. V was not invoked until July 9, 1993, after                           
respondent, herself, provided notice of her conviction.