Title: Disciplinary Counsel v. Rathburn

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. Rathburn, Slip Opinion No. 2010-Ohio-4467.] 
 
 
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. 2010-OHIO-4467 
DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. RATHBURN. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as Disciplinary Counsel v. Rathburn,  
Slip Opinion No. 2010-Ohio-4467.] 
Attorneys — Misconduct — Consent to discipline — Two-year license suspension 
stayed on conditions. 
(No. 2010-0661 — Submitted June 9, 2010 — Decided September 28, 2010.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 09-101. 
__________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Dennis A. Rathburn of Ashville, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0055233, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1991.  
After respondent was charged with two felonies for presenting an altered 
prescription for Roxicodone to a pharmacy, relator, Disciplinary Counsel, charged 
him with engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or 
misrepresentation and engaging in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
practice law.  A panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievance and 
Discipline considered the cause on the parties’ consent-to-discipline agreement.  
See Section 11 of the Rules and Regulations Governing Procedure on Complaints 
and Hearings Before the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline 
(“BCGD Proc.Reg.”).  The panel and board recommend that we accept the 
agreement, including the agreed stipulations of fact and misconduct and 
recommended sanction of a two-year suspension stayed on conditions.  We adopt 
these findings of fact and misconduct and the recommended sanction. 
Misconduct 
{¶ 2} The stipulated facts show that respondent had suffered from severe 
chronic back pain and a severe right knee injury for many years.  From June 2003 
through May 2009, a treating physician prescribed increasing doses of narcotic 
pain medication to treat this pain. 
{¶ 3} After presenting an altered prescription for Roxicodone to a 
pharmacy, respondent was charged in a two-count bill of information with 
deception to obtain a dangerous drug in violation of R.C. 2925.22(A) and illegal 
processing of drug documents in violation of R.C. 2925.23(B)(1), both fourth-
degree felonies.  The next day, respondent moved for intervention in lieu of 
conviction and pleaded guilty to both charges.  On Sept. 21, 2009, the trial court 
determined that respondent was eligible for intervention in lieu of conviction and 
sentenced him to three years of intervention and 40 hours of community service.  
Respondent completed inpatient treatment at Talbot Hall, a drug-and-alcohol 
treatment facility at Ohio State University Hospital East, from June 12 through 
June 17, 2009, followed by an intensive outpatient program from June 18 through 
August 3, 2009. 
{¶ 4} The parties have stipulated, and the panel and board have found, 
that respondent’s conduct violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(c) (prohibiting a lawyer from 
engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation) and 
January Term, 2010 
3 
 
8.4(h) (prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct that adversely reflects on 
the lawyer’s fitness to practice law). 
Sanction 
{¶ 5} In recommending a sanction, the panel and board considered the 
aggravating and mitigating factors listed in BCGD Proc.Reg. 10.  Consistent with 
the parties’ stipulations, they found the following factors mitigating in favor of a 
lesser sanction: (1) no prior disciplinary record, (2) full and free disclosure during 
relator’s investigation and a cooperative attitude toward the disciplinary 
proceedings, (3) the imposition of other penalties or sanctions, and (4) the 
diagnosis of a chemical dependency that contributed to respondent’s misconduct, 
his successful completion of an approved treatment program, and the prognosis 
that he will be able to return to the competent, ethical practice of law.  See BCGD 
Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(a), (d), (f), and (g).  There is no evidence of aggravating 
factors.  See BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1). 
{¶ 6} Both the panel and the board accepted the parties’ consent-to-
discipline agreement, including the finding of misconduct and recommended 
sanction.  We agree that respondent violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.4 (c) and 8.4(h) and 
that consistent with the parties’ agreement, this conduct warrants a two-year 
suspension, all stayed on the conditions that he (1) remain alcohol and drug free, 
(2) enter into a two-year contract with the Ohio Lawyers Assistance Program and 
comply with the terms of that contract, (3) attend, at a minimum, a weekly 
meeting of Alcoholics Anonymous or Narcotics Anonymous, and (4) comply with 
the terms of his court-supervised intervention. 
{¶ 7} In Disciplinary Counsel v. Wolf, 110 Ohio St.3d 411, 2006-Ohio-
4709, 853 N.E.2d 1169, we imposed a similar sanction for violations of the 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
corresponding provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility1 arising from 
the attorney’s conviction on two counts of procuring dangerous prescription drugs 
by deception in violation of R.C. 2925.22(A). 
{¶ 8} On the recommendation of the panel and board, we accept the 
consent-to-discipline agreement.  Accordingly, respondent is hereby suspended 
from the practice of law in Ohio for two years, with the suspension stayed on the 
conditions that he (1) remain alcohol and drug free, (2) enter into a two-year 
contract with the Ohio Lawyers Assistance Program and comply with the terms of 
that contract, (3) attend, at a minimum, a weekly meeting of Alcoholics 
Anonymous or Narcotics Anonymous, and (4) comply with all terms of his court-
supervised intervention.  If respondent fails to meet these conditions, the stay of 
his suspension will be lifted, and respondent will serve the entire two-year 
suspension from the practice of law.  Costs are taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
BROWN, 
C.J., 
and 
PFEIFER, 
LUNDBERG 
STRATTON, 
O’CONNOR, 
O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, and CUPP, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
Jonathan E. Coughlan, Disciplinary Counsel, and Stacy Solochek 
Beckman, Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. 
Robert Erney, for respondent. 
______________________ 
                                                 
1.  DR 1-102(A)(4) (prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, 
deceit, or misrepresentation), and 1-102(A)(6) (prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct that 
adversely reflects upon the lawyer’s fitness to practice law).