Title: Disciplinary Counsel v. Jackson

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. JACKSON. 
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Jackson (1999), ___ Ohio St.3d ___.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Public reprimand — Uncivil behavior toward 
opposing parties and counsel. 
(No. 98-781 — Submitted July 15, 1998 — Decided January 13, 1999.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 97-8. 
 
This disciplinary case arose when a dispute between adjacent residential 
property owners resulted in uncivil behavior by the attorneys for the parties.  As a 
consequence, on February 18, 1997, relator, Office of Disciplinary Counsel, filed a 
complaint charging that respondent, Michael P. Jackson of Columbus, Ohio, 
Attorney Registration No. 0019891, violated DR 1-102(A)(5) (a lawyer shall not 
engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice), 1-102(A)(6) 
(a lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects upon his fitness to 
practice law), 7-102(A)(1) (in representing a client a lawyer shall not take an 
action which he knows will merely harass or maliciously injure another), and 7-
102(A)(5) (a lawyer shall not knowingly make a false statement of law or fact).  
After respondent answered, a panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances 
and Discipline of the Supreme Court (“board”) heard the matter. 
 
The panel found that respondent represented the plaintiff in a dispute 
between adjacent property owners, in which a third party was joined as an 
additional defendant.  During the case, relations between the attorneys for the two 
property owners had so deteriorated that depositions were taken in the common 
pleas courthouse in order that the judge could be close at hand.  At one point in 
such a deposition, when the parties submitted a question about the scope of the 
examination to the judge, she expressed her concern about the conduct of counsel.  
 
2
One of the opposing counsel in the case then accused respondent of improper 
behavior during a break in the depositions. 
 
Upon being advised of the accusations, the common pleas court judge 
convened an emergency hearing regarding respondent’s behavior.  At that time 
attorneys for the two defendant parties and the principal defendant stated that 
during the break, respondent shouted obscene and vulgar language at one of the 
opposing parties and racial epithets at his attorney.  Respondent denied these 
actions, although he admitted that he may have quietly muttered some obscene 
statements under his breath.  The judge found respondent in contempt and fined 
him $500. 
 
The panel concluded that respondent’s conduct violated the Disciplinary 
Rules as charged, and recommended that he be suspended from the practice of law 
for six months with the entire suspension stayed pending good behavior and 
conduct.  The board adopted the findings and conclusions of the panel, and 
recommended that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for six 
months with the entire suspension stayed, provided that during the stay period 
respondent complete twelve hours of continuing legal education on 
professionalism. 
__________________ 
 
Jonathan E. Coughlan, Disciplinary Counsel, Lori J. Brown and Kevin L. 
Williams, Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. 
 
Michael P. Jackson, pro se. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam.  We adopt the findings and conclusions of the board but not 
the recommended sanction.  As we noted in Toledo Bar Assn. v. Bell (1997), 78 
Ohio St.3d 88, 91, 676 N.E.2d 527, 529, “Our Ethical Considerations, specifically 
 
3
EC 1-5, which encourage lawyers to maintain high standards of professional 
conduct, do not countenance the use of epithets and racial slurs.”  We said in 
Toledo Bar Assn. v. Batt (1997), 78 Ohio St.3d 189, 192, 677 N.E.2d 349, 352, 
that “an attorney has a duty to be civil to opposing counsel and the court.”  In 
Columbus Bar Assn. v. Riebel (1982), 69 Ohio St.2d 290, 292, 23 O.O.3d 279, 
280, 432 N.E.2d 165, 166-167, where an attorney used offensive and abusive 
language against opposing counsel and his client, we issued a public reprimand, 
saying: 
 
“It is within the real meaning and intent of our Code of Professional 
Responsibility that lawyers should always be cognizant of the necessity for good 
manners, courtesy and discourse, both to client and other practitioners, as being 
part of our professional ethics. 
 
“The zeal employed by an attorney in guarding the interests of his clients 
must always be tempered so as not to inject his personal feelings or display a 
demeanor that subjects parties to a proceeding or opposing counsel to certain 
indignities.” 
 
Our review of the record in this case suggests that respondent’s conduct 
might have been a reaction to aggressive behavior by opposing counsel.  
Nevertheless, respondent was not justified in failing to maintain his composure.  
Part of the role of an attorney is to remove himself from the emotions of the 
moment and provide objective counsel and representation to clients.  To perform 
that role, attorneys must hold themselves to the highest standards of 
professionalism. The facts in this case indicate that respondent should receive a 
public reprimand, and it is so ordered.  Costs are taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
4
 
DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and LUNDBERG 
STRATTON, JJ., concur. 
 
MOYER, C.J., would suspend respondent from the practice of law for six 
months, stayed.