Title: Disciplinary Counsel v. Jones

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Jones, 90 Ohio St.3d 244, 2000-Ohio-29.] 
 
 
 
OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. JONES. 
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Jones (2000), 90 Ohio St.3d 244.] 
Attorneys at law — Reinstatement to the practice of law. 
(No. DD 87-33 — Submitted July 6, 2000 — Decided October 25, 2000.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 4-87-B. 
 
In 1988 we indefinitely suspended respondent, Terrence Conrad Jones of  
Toledo, Ohio, Attorney Registration No. 0042991, from the practice of law in 
Ohio based on several Disciplinary Rule violations, including his conviction on 
two counts of drug abuse.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Jones (1988), 38 Ohio St.3d 
338, 528 N.E.2d 190. 
 
On February 18, 1999, respondent filed for reinstatement, alleging that he 
had remained drug-free for the past nineteen months, that he had complied with 
the continuing legal education requirements of Gov.Bar R. X(3)(F), and that he 
was a proper person to be readmitted to the practice of law.  The matter was heard 
by a panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the 
Supreme Court. 
 
The panel found that respondent was an admitted drug addict who had 
used cocaine from 1987 through 1997, but acknowledged respondent’s claim that 
he had been “clean and sober” for the past two years.  However, it found that 
respondent “did not exhibit a humble or remorse [sic] attitude in his demeanor.”  
The panel concluded that since his indefinite suspension in 1988, respondent had 
not shown that “he possesses all of the mental, educational, and moral 
qualifications that were required of an applicant for admission to the practice of 
law in Ohio at the time of his original admission.”  The panel therefore 
 
 
2 
recommended that respondent’s request for reinstatement be denied.  The board 
adopted the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the panel. 
__________________ 
 
Jonathan Coughlan, Disciplinary Counsel, and Kevin L. Williams, 
Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. 
 
Britz & Zemmelman and Harland M. Britz, for respondent. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam.  Respondent has been suspended from the practice of law 
since 1985, including an automatic indefinite suspension based on a criminal 
conviction.  Although the record at the panel hearing shows that on occasion 
respondent used drugs after his suspension, it also shows that he has been free 
from drug use for the past two years.  Respondent presented exhibits to support 
his contention that he was a talented and successful lawyer prior to 1987 and that 
he has completed the requisite number of hours of continuing legal education for 
his reinstatement.  Respondent also stated that he intended to resume AA 
meetings, which he had discontinued approximately eleven weeks before the 
panel hearing. 
 
Having reviewed the record, we find that it has now been over fifteen 
years since respondent committed the acts for which he was suspended, that 
respondent is more mature, that he recognizes his problem, and that he is likely to 
avoid relapses in the future.  We therefore conclude that the respondent ought to 
be and he hereby is reinstated to the practice of law in Ohio.  Costs are taxed to 
respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY and LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur. 
 
MOYER, C.J., and COOK, J., concur in part and dissent in part. 
 
PFEIFER, J., dissents. 
__________________ 
 
 
3 
 
COOK, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part.  The majority 
concedes that “the record at the panel hearing shows that on occasion respondent 
used drugs after his suspension,” yet finds that “it has now been over fifteen years 
since respondent committed the acts for which he was suspended.”  Because 
respondent’s drug use was the basis for his suspension, Disciplinary Counsel v. 
Jones (1988), 38 Ohio St.3d 338, 528 N.E.2d 190, and because respondent 
admitted to a relapse and misdemeanor conviction for possession of drug 
paraphernalia in 1997, I find the majority’s reasoning unpersuasive. 
 
Due to respondent’s recent efforts at rehabilitation, negative drug screens, 
and compliance with this court’s legal education requirements, I would reinstate 
respondent and subject his first two years of reinstatement to conditions of 
probation.  During that probationary period, I would require that respondent 
attend the AA meetings that he discontinued prior to the panel hearing.  I would 
also require that respondent enter into a contract with the Ohio Lawyers 
Assistance Program for the term of probation, that he be subject to random 
urinalysis, and that he be placed under the supervision of a monitor other than his 
employer.  See Disciplinary Counsel v. Bussinger (1994), 71 Ohio St.3d 1210, 
643 N.E.2d 137.  Following the two years, respondent could apply for termination 
of probation in accordance with Gov.Bar R. V(9)(D).  Violation of any condition 
of probation could result in revocation of probation and reinstatement of 
respondent’s suspension.  Gov.Bar R. V(9)(E). 
 
MOYER, C.J., concurs in the foregoing opinion.