Title: Disciplinary Counsel v. Grossman

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. Grossman, Slip Opinion No. 2015-Ohio-2340.] 
 
 
 
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-2340 
DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. GROSSMAN. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as Disciplinary Counsel v. Grossman, Slip Opinion  
No. 2015-Ohio-2340.] 
Attorneys—Misconduct—Felony conviction—Engaging in conduct that adversely 
reflects on the lawyer’s fitness to practice law—Indefinite suspension. 
(No. 2014-2156—Submitted February 4, 2015—Decided June 23, 2015.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 2014-023. 
_______________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Jason Courtland Grossman, formerly of Worthington, 
Ohio, Attorney Registration No. 0084884, was admitted to the practice of law in 
Ohio in 2009.  We suspended him on November 1, 2013, for failing to register as 
an attorney for the 2013-2015 biennium.  In re Attorney Registration Suspension 
of Grossman, 136 Ohio St.3d 1544, 2013-Ohio-4827, 996 N.E.2d 973.  And on 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
2
February 5, 2014, we suspended his license on an interim basis upon receiving 
notice that he had been convicted of a felony.  In re Grossman, 138 Ohio St.3d 
1231, 2014-Ohio-360, 5 N.E.3d 652. 
{¶ 2} On March 3, 2014, relator, disciplinary counsel, filed a complaint 
with the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline1 alleging that 
Grossman had pleaded guilty to one count of receipt of visual depictions of child 
pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2252(a)(2) and had thereby 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).  Grossman answered 
the complaint, admitted to his felony conviction, and did not contest the alleged 
misconduct. 
{¶ 3} The chairperson of the panel of the board assigned to hear the matter 
granted the parties’ joint motion to waive the hearing, and the matter was 
submitted to the panel on the parties’ agreed stipulations of fact, misconduct, 
aggravating and mitigating factors, and exhibits.  The parties jointly 
recommended an indefinite suspension as an appropriate sanction with an 
additional recommendation that Grossman should be required to wait until after 
he has completed his term of probation in his criminal case to petition for 
reinstatement.  The panel and board adopted the parties’ stipulations, 
recommended that Grossman be indefinitely suspended from the practice of law 
in Ohio, and also recommended that he not be permitted to petition for 
reinstatement until he has completed the term of probation imposed in his 
criminal case.  We adopt the board’s report in its entirety and indefinitely suspend 
Grossman from the practice of law in Ohio. 
 
 
                                                 
1 Effective January 1, 2015, the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline has been 
renamed the Board of Professional Conduct.  See Gov.Bar R. V(1)(A), 140 Ohio St.3d CII. 
January Term, 2015 
 
3
Misconduct 
{¶ 4} Grossman was charged by information in the United States District 
Court for the Southern District of Ohio in August 2013 with one count of receipt 
of visual depictions of child pornography.  He pleaded guilty and on January 28, 
2014, was sentenced to 60 months in prison and five years of supervised release.  
He was ordered to pay $1,500 in restitution, plus a special assessment of $100. 
{¶ 5} Among the conditions of Grossman’s supervision upon his release 
from prison are requirements that he (1) comply with the requirements of the Sex 
Offender Registration and Notification Act (42 U.S.C. 16901 et seq.) as directed 
by his probation officer, the Bureau of Prisons, or the sex-offender-registration 
agency of any state in which he resides, works, is a student, or was convicted of a 
qualifying offense, (2) participate in mental-health counseling, including sex-
offender counseling, as directed by his probation officer, (3) not possess or have 
under his control any matter that is sexually explicit or that depicts or alludes to 
sexual activity or depicts minors under the age of 18, (4) register as a sex offender 
based upon the laws of the state of his residence, a requirement that may extend 
beyond the termination of his federal supervision, and (5) permit monitoring 
software to be installed on any computer he owns or has access to, as directed by 
his probation officer. 
{¶ 6} The board noted that in addition to the child-pornography 
conviction, Grossman admitted that he had communicated online with an 
undercover police officer who was posing as the father of an 11-year-old girl and 
that they discussed various sex acts involving the fictitious girl before Grossman 
went to a prearranged location expecting to meet her.  In his presentence 
psychological examination, Grossman stated that he did not believe that he would 
have had sexual contact with the minor but that he went to meet her out of 
curiosity.  He also stated that he hoped that “he would not have acted on a 
fantasy.” 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
4
{¶ 7} Grossman admitted and the board found that his conduct adversely 
reflected on his fitness to practice law in violation of Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(h).  We 
adopt the board’s findings of fact and misconduct. 
Sanction 
{¶ 8} In determining what sanction to recommend to this court, the board 
considered the ethical duties the lawyer violated, the presence of aggravating and 
mitigating factors listed in BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B),2 and the sanctions imposed in 
similar cases. 
{¶ 9} The parties stipulated to one aggravating factor—that Grossman’s 
conduct was directed at vulnerable victims.  See BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(h).  
The board agreed with that stipulation and additionally found that although 
Grossman was not convicted of soliciting a minor for sexual contact, the evidence 
was clear that he possessed the dishonest motive to engage in that conduct and 
that he engaged in an ongoing course of conduct.  See BCGD Proc.Reg. 
10(B)(1)(b) and (c).  And although the parties stipulated to the mitigating factor of 
no prior discipline, the board noted that Grossman’s 2013 attorney-registration 
suspension constitutes a prior disciplinary offense and is, therefore, an 
aggravating factor.  See BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(a); Disciplinary Counsel v. 
Anthony, 138 Ohio St.3d 129, 2013-Ohio-5502, 4 N.E.3d 1006, ¶ 11. 
{¶ 10} As mitigating factors, the parties stipulated and the board found 
that Grossman made a full and free disclosure to the board and exhibited a 
cooperative attitude toward the disciplinary proceedings and that other penalties 
or sanctions have been imposed for Grossman’s misconduct (i.e., incarceration, 
supervised release, and restitution).  See BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(d) and (f). 
{¶ 11} The board recommends that we indefinitely suspend Grossman 
from the practice of law and that he not be permitted to petition for reinstatement 
                                                 
2 Effective January 1, 2015, the aggravating and mitigating factors previously set forth in BCGD 
Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1) and (2) are codified in Gov.Bar R. V(13), 140 Ohio St.3d CXXIV. 
January Term, 2015 
 
5
until he has completed the term of probation imposed as part of his criminal 
sentence.  The board cites three cases in which we have imposed indefinite 
suspensions on attorneys who engaged in various sexually oriented offenses.  See 
Disciplinary Counsel v. Goldblatt, 118 Ohio St.3d 310, 2008-Ohio-2458, 888 
N.E.2d 1091 (indefinitely suspending an attorney who attempted to arrange a 
sexual encounter with a minor during conversations with an undercover FBI 
agent); Disciplinary Counsel v. Ridenbaugh, 122 Ohio St.3d 583, 2009-Ohio-
4091, 913 N.E.2d 443 (indefinitely suspending an attorney who made audio tapes 
of his neighbors engaging in sexual relations, made a peephole into an adjoining 
apartment to view his female neighbor, and possessed child pornography); and 
Columbus Bar Assn. v. Linnen, 111 Ohio St.3d 507, 2006-Ohio-5480, 857 N.E.2d 
539 (indefinitely suspending an attorney who indecently exposed himself to and 
photographed the reactions of at least 30 different women). 
{¶ 12} In Goldblatt, Ridenbaugh, and Linnen, we recognized that when an 
attorney has committed sex crimes, an indefinite suspension protects the public, 
deters other lawyers from similar wrongdoing, and preserves the public’s trust in 
the legal profession.  Goldblatt at ¶ 29-30; Ridenbaugh at ¶ 13; Linnen at ¶ 28.  
An indefinite suspension also leaves open the possibility that the errant attorney 
may one day be rehabilitated, redeemed, and able to resume the competent, 
ethical, and professional practice of law.  See Goldblatt at ¶ 23-26; Ridenbaugh at 
¶ 40-41; Linnen at ¶ 30-32. 
{¶ 13} Having considered Grossman’s conduct, the applicable aggravating 
and mitigating factors, and the sanctions imposed for comparable misconduct, we 
agree that an indefinite suspension is the appropriate sanction in this case. 
{¶ 14} Accordingly, Jason Courtland Grossman is indefinitely suspended 
from the practice of law in Ohio and shall not be permitted to petition for 
reinstatement until he has completed the term of probation imposed for his 
criminal offense.  Costs are taxed to Grossman. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
6
Judgment accordingly. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, KENNEDY, 
FRENCH, and O’NEILL, JJ., concur. 
_________________________ 
Scott J. Drexel, Disciplinary Counsel, and Catherine M. Russo, Assistant 
Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. 
Jason Courtland Grossman, pro se. 
_________________________