Title: Toledo Bar Assn. v. Long

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
Toledo Bar Assn. v. Long, Slip Opinion No. 2021-Ohio-3967.] 
 
 
 
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. 2021-OHIO-3967 
TOLEDO BAR ASSOCIATION v. LONG. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as Toledo Bar Assn. v. Long, Slip Opinion No. 2021-Ohio-3967.] 
Attorneys—Misconduct—Violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct—
Indefinite suspension imposed with no credit for time served under interim 
felony suspension. 
(No. 2021-0751—Submitted August 3, 2021—Decided November 10, 2021.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Professional Conduct of the 
Supreme Court, No. 2019-036. 
______________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Stephen Dennis Long, formerly of Toledo, Ohio, 
Attorney Registration No. 0063824, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 
1994.  On March 20, 2019, we suspended him from the practice of law on an interim 
basis after he was convicted of multiple felony counts of pandering sexually 
oriented matter involving a minor and illegal use of a minor in nudity-oriented 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
2
material or performance.  See In re Long, 156 Ohio St.3d 1270, 2019-Ohio-952, 
126 N.E.3d 1195. 
{¶ 2} In a July 2019 complaint, relator, Toledo Bar Association, alleged that 
the conduct underlying Long’s criminal convictions constituted illegal acts that 
adversely reflect on his honesty, trustworthiness, and fitness to practice law. 
{¶ 3} A three-member panel of the Board of Professional Conduct was 
appointed to hear the case.  The parties submitted stipulations of fact and 
misconduct and agreed that Long should be indefinitely suspended from the 
practice of law with no credit for time served under his interim suspension.  They 
also filed a joint motion to waive the hearing in this matter, which the panel 
chairperson granted.  After considering the parties’ stipulations, the applicable 
aggravating and mitigating factors, and this court’s precedent, the panel found that 
Long committed the charged misconduct and recommended that he be indefinitely 
suspended from the practice of law with no credit for time served under his interim 
suspension.  The board adopted the findings and recommendation of the panel, and 
no objections have been filed. 
{¶ 4} We adopt the board’s findings of misconduct and recommended 
sanction. 
Stipulated Facts and Misconduct 
{¶ 5} On May 2, 2017, a search warrant was executed at Long’s residence.  
Based on evidence obtained in that search, a Wood County grand jury indicted 
Long on five second-degree-felony counts of pandering sexually oriented matter 
involving a minor and one fifth-degree-felony count of possessing criminal tools.  
See State v. Long, Wood C.P. No. 2017CR0556 (Nov. 16, 2017).  Another Wood 
County grand jury later indicted Long on eight additional counts of pandering 
sexually oriented matter involving a minor and two counts of illegal use of a minor 
in nudity-oriented material or performance—all second-degree felonies.  See State 
v. Long, Wood C.P.  No. 2018CR0141 (Mar. 22, 2018). 
January Term, 2021 
 
3
{¶ 6} On December 10, 2018, Long entered no-contest pleas and was found 
guilty of all the charges in both cases.  On March 11, 2019, the trial court sentenced 
him to an aggregate ten-year prison term.  The trial court also designated Long a 
Tier II sex offender.  Long appealed his convictions to the Sixth District Court of 
Appeals, which affirmed his convictions on August 14, 2020.  See generally State 
v. Long, 2020-Ohio-4090, 157 N.E.3d 362 (6th Dist.), appeal not accepted, 160 
Ohio St.3d 1496, 2020-Ohio-5634, 159 N.E.3d 282, cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 141 
S.Ct. 2611, 209 L.Ed.2d 740 (2021). 
{¶ 7} As a result of Long’s criminal convictions, the parties stipulated and 
the board found that Long violated 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 8.4(h) (prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct that 
adversely reflects on the lawyer’s fitness to practice law).  We accept these findings 
and agree that Long’s illegal conduct was sufficiently egregious to constitute a 
separate violation of Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(h).  See Disciplinary Counsel v. Bricker, 137 
Ohio St.3d 35, 2013-Ohio-3998, 997 N.E.2d 500, ¶ 21. 
Sanction 
{¶ 8} When imposing sanctions for attorney misconduct, we consider all 
relevant factors, including the ethical duties that the attorney violated, the 
aggravating and mitigating factors listed in Gov.Bar R. V(13), and the sanctions 
imposed in similar cases. 
{¶ 9} As for aggravating factors, the parties and the board cited Long’s 
multiple offenses and the vulnerability of and resulting harm to the victims of his 
conduct, who were minors.  See Gov.Bar R. V(13)(B)(4) and (8).  As for mitigating 
factors, the board accepted the parties’ stipulations that Long (1) does not have a 
record of prior discipline, (2) made full and free disclosure to the board and 
exhibited a cooperative attitude toward the disciplinary proceedings, (3) had other 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
4
penalties or sanctions imposed for his conduct, and (4) has received ongoing 
counseling since his incarceration.  See Gov.Bar R. V(13)(C)(1), (4), (6), and (8). 
{¶ 10} The board recommends that we adopt the parties’ stipulated sanction 
of an indefinite suspension with no credit for the time that Long has served under 
his interim felony suspension.  In support of that sanction, the board notes that we 
have imposed the same sanction on seven other attorneys who were convicted of 
similar offenses.  See, e.g., Disciplinary Counsel v. Connors, 160 Ohio St.3d 338, 
2020-Ohio-3339, 156 N.E.3d 895 (attorney convicted of one felony count of illegal 
use of a minor in nudity-oriented material or performance and ordered to register 
as a Tier I sex offender for 15 years); Disciplinary Counsel v. Martyniuk, 150 Ohio 
St.3d 220, 2017-Ohio-4329, 80 N.E.3d 488 (attorney convicted of 20 felony counts 
of pandering sexually oriented material involving a minor and ordered to register 
as a Tier II sex offender for 25 years); Disciplinary Counsel v. Grossman, 143 Ohio 
St.3d 302, 2015-Ohio-2340, 37 N.E.3d 155 (attorney convicted in federal court of 
one count of receipt of visual depictions of child pornography after he 
communicated with an undercover police officer posing as the father of a fictitious 
11-year-old girl and went to a prearranged location expecting to meet her). 
{¶ 11} After independently reviewing the record in this case and our 
precedent, we adopt the board’s findings of misconduct and agree that an indefinite 
suspension with no credit for time served under our interim suspension order is the 
appropriate sanction in this case. 
Conclusion 
{¶ 12} Accordingly, Stephen Dennis Long is indefinitely suspended from 
the practice of law in Ohio with no credit for the time that he has served under the 
interim felony suspension imposed on March 20, 2019.  Costs are taxed to Long. 
Judgment accordingly. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and KENNEDY, FISCHER, DEWINE, DONNELLY, STEWART, 
and BRUNNER, JJ., concur. 
January Term, 2021 
 
5
_________________ 
Johnson & Associates and D. Lee Johnson Jr.; Bugbee & Conkle, L.L.P., 
and Janelle M. Matuszak; and Joseph P. Dawson, Bar Counsel, for relator. 
Stephen Dennis Long, pro se. 
_________________