Title: Disciplinary Counsel v. Ault

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Ault, 110 Ohio St.3d 207, 2006-Ohio-4247.] 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. AULT. 
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Ault, 110 Ohio St.3d 207, 2006-Ohio-4247.] 
Judges – Misconduct – Drug abuse – Conviction of obtaining dangerous drug by 
deception – Conduct involving dishonesty – Failure to uphold integrity of 
judiciary – Failure to comply with law – Failure to avoid impropriety – 
Two-year suspension, stayed on conditions. 
(No. 2006-0441 — Submitted April 25, 2006 — Decided August 30, 2006.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 04-068. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Jerry Edwin Ault of Mansfield, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0008445, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1978.  
Since June 1, 2000, respondent has served as a judge of the Mansfield Municipal 
Court.  Respondent was elected to a second term in November 2005 and is 
currently the presiding judge. 
{¶ 2} On December 6, 2004, relator, Disciplinary Counsel, charged 
respondent with four counts of professional misconduct stemming from 
respondent’s abuse of prescription painkilling drugs.  The parties stipulated that 
respondent had violated provisions of the Code of Judicial Conduct and the Code 
of Professional Responsibility relative to Counts I through III, and to the 
dismissal of Count IV.  A panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances 
and Discipline heard the cause and, accepting the stipulations, made findings of 
misconduct and a recommendation, which the board adopted. 
Misconduct 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
{¶ 3} For each of Counts I, II, and III, the board found separate 
violations of DR 1-102(A)(4) (prohibiting conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, 
deceit, or misrepresentation).  The board also found as to each count that 
respondent had failed to uphold the integrity of the judiciary, a violation of Canon 
1, and had failed to comply with the law and act in a manner that promotes public 
confidence in the integrity of the judiciary, a violation of Canon 2.  The board 
further found that respondent had violated Canon 4 relative to all three counts by 
failing to avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all his activities. 
{¶ 4} Respondent began using painkillers in November 1999, after 
psychiatrist Dr. David Massie referred him to Dr. Ho Young Chung for help in 
managing pain caused by respondent’s osteoarthritis and other debilitating 
conditions.  In the years that followed, respondent would eventually deceive these 
two and several other doctors into overprescribing Schedule II, III, and IV 
narcotics for his use.  The parties stipulated to the addictive qualities of these 
drugs: 
{¶ 5} “Prescription drugs are classified into numerical categories 
according to standards prescribed by the Controlled Substances Act of 1970.  The 
classification is based upon the risk of abuse and the need for strict regulation.  
Schedule II drugs — such as Oxycontin, Methadone, Percodan and Duragesic 
patches — are classified as having a high potential for abuse and no automatic 
prescription refill renewals are permitted.  Schedule III drugs — such as Tylenol 
with Codeine and Vicodin — are classified as having some potential for abuse.  
Schedule IV drugs — such as Darvon and Darvocet are classified as having a low 
potential for abuse and are subject to less regulation.” 
{¶ 6} Acknowledging the risks of taking controlled substances and on 
Dr. Chung’s request, respondent signed a contract setting rules for his use of these 
drugs.  On November 29, 1999, respondent pledged that he would (1) consult only 
Dr. Chung for his prescriptions, (2) not ask for or accept controlled-substance 
January Term, 2006 
3 
medications from anyone other than Dr. Chung, (3) use the drugs only as Dr. 
Chung prescribed and, if he exceeded the prescribed dosage, not attempt to 
replace the medication, and (4) curtail his alcohol use.  Respondent renewed these 
pledges on January 7, 2002, and December 23, 2002. 
{¶ 7} Respondent stipulated to having breached these promises 
repeatedly during September 2001 through December 2002 by obtaining Schedule 
II, III, and IV narcotics from six doctors, mainly Drs. Chung, Massie, Young 
Kang, and Keun Choi.  Drs. Kang and Choi worked at the Get Well Center in 
Mansfield with Dr. Chung.  Dr. Massie, in addition to treating respondent for 
anxiety, at times also treated his physical ailments. 
{¶ 8} During the relevant period, respondent obtained from these doctors 
1,432 pills and 20 patches containing ten different narcotic painkillers.  He 
managed to acquire some of this supply by getting Drs. Chung, Massie, Kang, and 
Choi to prescribe medication for him and by not disclosing to them that they were 
replicating each other’s efforts.  Respondent’s duplicity resulted in his being 
prescribed medication far in excess of what any one of these physicians would 
have authorized. 
{¶ 9} In October 2002, the Ohio Pharmacy Board began to investigate 
respondent’s use of narcotic pain medication.  Early the next year, the board 
submitted its investigation to the Richland County Prosecutor’s Office, and a 
special prosecutor was appointed to pursue charges against respondent. 
{¶ 10} On April 9, 2003, representatives of the Ohio Lawyers Assistance 
Program (“OLAP”) confronted respondent about his drug use.  Respondent was 
admitted on May 8, 2003, to Talbot Hall at the Ohio State University for inpatient 
treatment for alcohol abuse and drug addiction.  He was released on May 17, 
2003, with a diagnosis of addiction to opioids and alcohol.  On June 4, 2003, 
respondent entered into a recovery and monitoring contract with OLAP. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
{¶ 11} On December 19, 2003, respondent pleaded no contest to two 
counts of attempting to obtain a dangerous drug by deception, misdemeanors of 
the first degree, in violation of R.C. 2923.02 and 2925.22(A).  R.C. 2925.22(A) 
states,  “No person, by deception, as defined in section 2913.01 of the Revised 
Code, shall procure the administration of, a prescription for, or the dispensing of, 
a dangerous drug.” R.C. 2913.01(A) defines “deception” as “knowingly deceiving 
another or causing another to be deceived by any false or misleading 
misrepresentation, by withholding information, by preventing another from 
acquiring information, or by any other conduct, act, or omission that creates, 
confirms, or perpetuates a false impression in another, including a false 
impression as to law, value, state of mind, or other objective or subjective fact.”  
For these offenses, respondent received a suspended 120-day jail sentence, was 
fined $1,000, and was ordered to serve a two-year probation period under strict 
conditions to assist in his recovery. 
{¶ 12} Evidence in support of Count I of relator’s complaint established 
that between September 25, 2001, and January 28, 2002, respondent deceived 
Drs. Chung and Massie into prescribing Darvon, Darvocet, and Tylenol with 
Codeine for him as many as ten times.  Sometimes, respondent told Dr. Massie 
that Dr. Chung was not available to provide a prescription for his pain, concealing 
from Dr. Massie that he had already obtained a painkilling prescription from 
another doctor.  At other times, respondent had Dr. Chung write a prescription for 
painkillers notwithstanding that Dr. Massie had already given him a prescription 
just a few days earlier. 
{¶ 13} Evidence in support of Count II of relator’s complaint established 
that Dr. Choi treated respondent for the first time on May 13, 2002, and 
prescribed Percodan and Duragesic patches for him.  Respondent did not inform 
Dr. Choi that respondent had seen Dr. Massie the day before and had obtained a 
prescription for 20 Darvocets. 
January Term, 2006 
5 
{¶ 14} Evidence in support of Count III established that Dr. Kang treated 
respondent for the first time on December 5, 2002, and prescribed Vicodin, 
Percodan, and methadone for his pain.  During this office visit, respondent 
advised that he had previously obtained Percocet from Dr. Massie and had run out 
of this drug.  Dr. Kang admonished respondent that he had violated the terms of 
his treatment by accepting painkillers from Dr. Massie without Dr. Chung’s 
knowledge.  Despite this remonstrance, respondent accepted the prescription from 
Dr. Kang and did not disclose that Dr. Massie had prescribed 30 Darvocets for 
pain just a few days before. 
Recommended Sanction 
{¶ 15} In recommending a sanction for this misconduct, the board 
weighed the mitigating and aggravating 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.”). 
{¶ 16} As mitigating, the parties stipulated that respondent had no prior 
disciplinary record and that he had cooperated during the disciplinary process.  
BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(a) and (d). The board further found that respondent 
deeply regretted his misdeeds. 
{¶ 17} Also mitigating is the fact that respondent’s problems resulted 
from a diagnosed chemical dependency that he has made progress in managing.  
He has successfully completed his two-year OLAP contract and has shown a 
sustained commitment to recovery, including continued membership in 
Alcoholics Anonymous.  BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(g).  Because of these efforts, 
respondent was discharged early from his court-ordered probation in June 2005. 
{¶ 18} The parties stipulated that the appropriate sanction for respondent’s 
misconduct was a 12-month suspension, with the entire suspension stayed on the 
condition that the respondent successfully complete a new OLAP contract for a 
probationary period of two years after the final order in this case.  The panel and 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
board accepted this proposal, recommending a one-year suspension of 
respondent’s license to practice, all stayed on the conditions advocated by the 
parties. 
Review 
{¶ 19} We adopt the findings that respondent violated DR 1-102(A)(4) 
and Canons 1, 2 and 4, as found by the board.  A two-year suspension, all stayed 
on conditions, however, is the appropriate sanction. 
{¶ 20} Respondent suffers chronic pain from a variety of serious physical 
infirmities.  His doctors’ attempts to manage this pain with controlled substances 
and without causing any addiction was no doubt made more difficult by 
respondent’s anxiety disorder and propensity to abuse alcohol.  For over a year, 
respondent complicated this process even further by intentionally deceiving his 
doctors into feeding the addiction. 
{¶ 21} Respondent’s addiction, however, apparently did not compromise 
his performance as a judge.  The Clerk of the Mansfield Municipal Court 
recounted that respondent had “fulfilled all of the obligations of a dedicated 
public servant” and had shown “impressive leadership in conducting the business 
of the court.”  The Mansfield Chief of Police also reported that he had worked 
with respondent in court and outside of court at all hours of the day, yet 
respondent had been always been “alert, attentive, and professional.”  In fact, the 
police chief never suspected respondent’s drug addiction. 
{¶ 22} Attorneys are obligated to secure the medical or other therapeutic 
assistance they need before any client, or in the case of a judge, a litigant, suffers 
from the attorney's professional incompetence.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Golden, 
97 Ohio St.3d 230, 2002-Ohio-5934, 778 N.E.2d 564, ¶ 24.  Thus, in Disciplinary 
Counsel v. Connor, 105 Ohio St.3d 100, 2004-Ohio-6902, 822 N.E.2d 1235, we 
attributed significant mitigating effect to the fact that although a judge’s 
alcoholism had resulted in two drunk-driving convictions, his alcohol abuse had 
January Term, 2006 
7 
not impaired his performance on the bench.  Because that judge had also 
committed to treatment and had maintained sobriety for nearly two years, we 
found that he could continue to act as a judge without any risk to the public or the 
judicial system.  We draw the same conclusion here. 
{¶ 23} In determining the appropriate sanction for professional 
misconduct, we consider “ ‘the duties violated, the actual injury caused, the 
lawyer's mental state, the existence of aggravating or mitigating circumstances, 
and sanctions imposed in similar cases.’ ” Disciplinary Counsel v. Connors, 97 
Ohio St.3d 479, 2002-Ohio-6722, 780 N.E.2d 567, ¶ 16, quoting Stark Cty. Bar 
Assn. v. Buttacavoli, 96 Ohio St.3d 424, 2002-Ohio-4743, 775 N.E.2d 818, ¶ 16.  
All that is left to do in this case is to review the sanctions imposed in similar 
cases. 
{¶ 24} In Disciplinary Counsel v. Casalinuovo (1993), 66 Ohio St.3d 367, 
613 N.E.2d 177, a lawyer, after being charged with drug abuse, successfully 
completed a program of treatment in lieu of conviction.  We imposed a two-year 
suspension for this misconduct, staying the entire suspension on conditions 
similar to those required by respondent’s OLAP recovery contract.  Also 
comparable is Disciplinary Counsel v. May, 106 Ohio St.3d 385, 2005-Ohio-
5320, 835 N.E.2d 372, in which we ordered another two-year, conditionally 
stayed suspension for a lawyer who had forged Vicodin prescriptions but had 
successfully completed a program of drug treatment in lieu of conviction. 
{¶ 25} Respondent is therefore suspended from the practice of law in 
Ohio for two years.  The suspension is stayed, however, on the conditions that 
respondent (1) serve a two-year probation period pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(9) and 
(2) comply with a new two-year OLAP recovery contract during that probation.  
If respondent fails to comply with the conditions of the stay, the stay shall be 
lifted, and respondent shall serve the entire two-year suspension. 
{¶ 26} Costs are taxed to respondent. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
8 
Judgment accordingly. 
MOYER, C.J., RESNICK, PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’CONNOR, 
O’DONNELL and LANZINGER, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
 
Jonathan E. Coughlan, Disciplinary Counsel, and Robert R. Berger, 
Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. 
 
Jay Milano, Stacy M. Ganor, and Rachel May Weiser, for respondent. 
______________________