Title: Disciplinary Counsel v. Rosen

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
Disciplinary Counsel v. Rosen, Slip Opinion No. 2015-Ohio-3420.] 
 
 
 
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. 2015-OHIO-3420 
DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. ROSEN. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as Disciplinary Counsel v. Rosen, Slip Opinion No.  
2015-Ohio-3420.] 
Attorneys 
at 
law—Misconduct—Improperly 
accessing 
confidential 
law-
enforcement database—Engaging in conduct that adversely reflects on the 
lawyer’s fitness to practice law—Public reprimand. 
(No. 2015-0278—Submitted March 11, 2015—Decided August 26, 2015.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Professional Conduct of the Supreme 
Court, No. 2014-073. 
_______________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Erin Geralyn Rosen of Mason, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0071156, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1999.  
On October 6, 2014, relator, disciplinary counsel, charged Rosen with 
professional misconduct for conduct that occurred between August 2007 and 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
2
August 2008 while Rosen, then an Assistant Attorney General in the Ohio 
Attorney General’s Office, was serving as general counsel for the Ohio Law 
Enforcement Gateway (“OHLEG”).  OHLEG allows criminal justice agencies and 
their personnel access to several data systems, some of which contain confidential 
information reserved for law-enforcement personnel only.  Relator alleged that 
Rosen improperly accessed the OHLEG system to seek information about four 
individuals that either she or her friends were dating. 
{¶ 2} A panel of the Board of Professional Conduct considered the cause 
on the parties’ consent-to-discipline agreement.  See BCGD Proc.Reg. 11.1   
{¶ 3} In the consent-to-discipline agreement, Rosen stipulates to the facts 
alleged in relator’s complaint and agrees that her conduct violated Prof.Cond.R. 
8.4(h) (prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct that adversely reflects on 
the lawyer’s fitness to practice law). 
{¶ 4} The parties stipulate that the applicable mitigating factors include 
the absence of a prior disciplinary record, Rosen’s cooperative attitude toward the 
disciplinary proceedings, and her full and free disclosure to the disciplinary board.  
See BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(a) and (d).2  The parties agree that there are no 
aggravating factors.  Based upon Rosen’s stipulated misconduct and these factors, 
the parties stipulate that the appropriate sanction is a public reprimand. 
{¶ 5} The panel and the board found that the consent-to-discipline 
agreement conforms to BCGD Proc.Reg. 11 and recommend that we adopt the 
agreement in its entirety.  For precedent, the panel cites a case in which we 
publicly reprimanded an attorney who also violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(h), had 
similar mitigating factors, and had no aggravating factors.  See Disciplinary 
Counsel v. Mecklenborg, 139 Ohio St.3d 411, 2014-Ohio-1908, 12 N.E.3d 411 
                                                 
1 Effective January 1, 2015, Gov.Bar R. V(16), 140 Ohio St.3d CXXX, governs consent-to-
discipline agreements. 
2 Effective January 1, 2015, the aggravating and mitigating factors previously set forth in BCGD 
Proc.Reg. 10(B) are codified in Gov.Bar R. V(13), 140 Ohio St.3d CXXIV. 
January Term, 2015 
 
3
(publicly reprimanding an attorney for operating a vehicle while under the 
influence of alcohol and negligently misrepresenting facts on an application to 
renew the attorney’s driver’s license). 
{¶ 6} We agree that Rosen violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(h) and that this 
conduct warrants a public reprimand.  Therefore, we adopt the parties’ consent-to-
discipline agreement. 
{¶ 7} Accordingly, Erin Geralyn Rosen is hereby publicly reprimanded.  
Costs are taxed to Rosen. 
Judgment accordingly. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, KENNEDY, 
FRENCH, and O’NEILL, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
Scott J. Drexel, Disciplinary Counsel, and Stacy Solochek Beckman, 
Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. 
Erin Geralyn Rosen, pro se. 
______________________