Title: Disciplinary Counsel v. Whitfield

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. Whitfield, Slip Opinion No. 2012-Ohio-2708.] 
 
 
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. 2012-OHIO-2708 
DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. WHITFIELD. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets,  
it may be cited as Disciplinary Counsel v. Whitfield, Slip Opinion  
No. 2012-Ohio-2708.] 
Attorneys—Misconduct—Conduct adversely reflecting on fitness to practice 
law—Unauthorized practice of law—Two-year suspension, with credit for 
time served, on conditions. 
(Nos. 2011-0284 and 2011-1755—Submitted January 18, 2012—Decided 
June 20, 2012.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 10-078. 
__________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, James Jonathan Whitfield of Cincinnati, Ohio, 
Attorney Registration No. 0080720, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
2006.1  In February 2010, Whitfield informed relator, disciplinary counsel, that he 
had been convicted of aggravated assault, a felony offense. Consequently, we 
suspended Whitfield’s license on an interim basis, effective May 24, 2010.  In re 
Whitfield, 125 Ohio St.3d 1428, 2010-Ohio-2261, 927 N.E.2d 2.  And on 
November 1, 2011, we suspended respondent from the practice of law for his 
failure to register as an attorney for the 2011-to-2013 biennium.  In re Attorney 
Registration Suspension of Whitfield, 130 Ohio St.3d 1420, 2011-Ohio-5627, 956 
N.E.2d 310. 
{¶ 2} On August 16, 2010, relator filed a two-count complaint alleging 
that Whitfield’s felony conviction adversely reflected on his fitness to practice 
law and that with respect to a single client, he had engaged in the unauthorized 
practice of law in Kentucky by signing an entry of appearance, as well as a 
request and an agreed order for genetic testing. 
{¶ 3} In accordance with BCGD Proc.Reg. 11, the parties submitted a 
consent-to-discipline agreement containing stipulations of fact and misconduct 
and a recommendation that Whitfield be suspended for one year with six months 
stayed and with credit for time served under the interim suspension.  On the 
recommendation of a panel of its members, the Board of Commissioners on 
Grievances and Discipline recommended that we adopt the consent-to-discipline 
agreement, but we rejected the parties’ recommended sanction and remanded the 
matter to the board for further proceedings.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Whitfield, 
128 Ohio St.3d 1437, 2011-Ohio-1527, 944 N.E.2d 238.2 
{¶ 4} On remand, the parties submitted their stipulated findings of fact, 
misconduct, and mitigation, but agreed that a two-year suspension, all stayed, 
                                                 
1  Whitfield testified that he had also been licensed to practice in Maryland. 
 
2  The board report recommending that we adopt the parties’ consent-to-discipline agreement was 
filed with this court in case No. 2011-0284.  Upon filing with this court, the board report 
following remand was assigned case No. 2011-1755.  We consolidate these cases, sua sponte, for 
disposition. 
January Term, 2012 
3 
 
would be an appropriate sanction for Whitfield’s misconduct.  A panel of the 
board conducted a hearing and adopted the parties’ stipulations but recommended 
that he be suspended for two years with credit for time served under his interim 
felony suspension.  The board adopted the panel’s report in its entirety, and so do 
we. 
Misconduct 
{¶ 5} The stipulated facts and testimony demonstrate that in April 2009, 
Whitfield was involved in an altercation with another man at a bar and hit him in 
the head with a glass bottle, causing serious injuries, including two facial 
lacerations and lodging a piece of glass in the man’s eye.  Whitfield was indicted 
on two counts of felonious assault.  In February 2010, he pleaded guilty to one 
count of aggravated assault, a fourth-degree felony, in violation of R.C. 
2903.12(A)(2), in exchange for dismissal of the felonious-assault charges.  He 
was sentenced to 90 days in jail and two years of community control.  He reported 
his misconduct to relator, which resulted in his May 24, 2010 interim felony 
suspension from the practice of law. 
{¶ 6} The parties also stipulated and the board found that while serving 
as the legal-services coordinator for Talbert House in Cincinnati, Ohio, Whitfield 
represented Everett L. Gregory in a paternity action in the Kenton Circuit Court, 
Family Court Division, in Kentucky.  Though he was not licensed to practice law 
in Kentucky, Whitfield signed several documents, including an entry of 
appearance, that were filed with the court, and the court served various documents 
on him as counsel of record. 
{¶ 7} Based upon the stipulated facts summarized above, the parties 
agree, and the panel and board found, that Whitfield’s conduct with respect to 
each count 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) and that his 
conduct with respect to count two also violated Prof.Cond.R. 5.5(a) (prohibiting a 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
lawyer from practicing law in a jurisdiction in violation of the regulation of the 
legal profession in that jurisdiction). 
{¶ 8} We adopt the stipulations of fact and misconduct as submitted by 
the parties and found by the board. 
Sanction 
{¶ 9} In recommending a sanction, the board considered the aggravating 
and mitigating factors listed in BCGD Proc.Reg. 10.  See Disciplinary Counsel v. 
Broeren, 115 Ohio St.3d 473, 2007-Ohio-5251, 875 N.E.2d 935, ¶ 21.  As 
mitigating factors, the parties stipulated and the board found that Whitfield  has 
no prior disciplinary record other than the interim felony suspension arising from 
the same aggravated-assault conviction that is the subject of count one herein, that 
he did not act with a dishonest or selfish motive, and that other penalties and 
sanctions have been imposed.  See BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(a), (b), and (f). 
{¶ 10} The parties also stipulated, and the board found, that Whitfield has 
made full and free disclosures and displayed a cooperative attitude throughout the 
disciplinary proceedings, noting that at relator’s request, he submitted to mental-
health and substance-abuse evaluations conducted by the Ohio Lawyers 
Assistance Program (“OLAP”).  See BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(d).  Although the 
evaluation did not find any issues that would have contributed to Whitfield’s 
misconduct, Megan Snyder, a licensed independent social worker for OLAP, 
testified that Whitfield was diagnosed with an adjustment disorder and depressed 
mood as a consequence of his arrest and incarceration.  As a result, he has entered 
into, and fully complied with, a two-year mental-health-recovery contract with 
OLAP. 
{¶ 11} Although the parties stipulated that no aggravating factors are 
present, the board found that the physical harm to the victim of Whitfield’s assault 
was an aggravating factor to be considered in determining the appropriate 
sanction for Whitfield’s misconduct.  See BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(h). 
January Term, 2012 
5 
 
{¶ 12} The parties stipulated that a two-year, fully stayed suspension is 
the appropriate sanction for Whitfield’s misconduct.  The panel and board, 
however, recommend that we suspend Whitfield for two years but give him credit 
for the time he has served under his interim felony suspension.  In support of this 
recommendation, they cite mitigating factors, Whitfield’s remorse, and 
Disciplinary Counsel v. Goodall, 103 Ohio St.3d 501, 2004-Ohio-5583, 817 
N.E.2d 23 (imposing a six-month suspension with credit for time served under an 
indefinite felony suspension for an attorney convicted of aggravated assault after 
she threw a bottle, injuring her husband’s arm during a domestic dispute). 
{¶ 13} We find the sanction in Goodall to be instructive, but because 
Whitfield has engaged in the unauthorized practice of law in Kentucky in addition 
to being convicted of aggravated assault, we conclude that the sanction 
recommended by the board is the appropriate sanction for his misconduct.  
However, we impose the additional requirements that he extend his OLAP 
contract for an additional two years from the date of this opinion and continue to 
follow the treatment recommendations of his mental-health professionals. 
{¶ 14} Accordingly, we suspend James Jonathan Whitfield from the 
practice of law in Ohio for two years but credit him for the time served under the 
interim felony suspension imposed on May 24, 2010, conditioned upon the 
extension of his OLAP contract for two years from the date of this opinion and his 
continued compliance with the treatment recommendations of his mental-health 
professionals.  Costs are taxed to Whitfield. 
Judgment accordingly. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, LANZINGER, CUPP, 
and MCGEE BROWN, JJ., concur. 
O’DONNELL, J., dissents and would indefinitely suspend the respondent for 
this misconduct. 
__________________ 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
 
Jonathan E. Coughlan, Disciplinary Counsel, and Heather H. Coglianese, 
Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. 
James Jonathan Whitfield, pro se. 
______________________