Title: Dayton Bar Assn. v. Rohrkaste

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as Dayton Bar Assn. v. Rohrkaste, 111 Ohio St.3d 224, 2006-Ohio-5487.] 
 
 
DAYTON BAR ASSOCIATION v. ROHRKASTE. 
[Cite as Dayton Bar Assn. v. Rohrkaste, 111 Ohio St.3d 224, 2006-Ohio-5487.] 
Attorneys at law—Misconduct—Conduct adversely reflecting on fitness to 
practice law—Conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice—
Suspension stayed on conditions. 
(No. 2006-0820 — Submitted June 7, 2006 — Decided November 8, 2006.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 05-049. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, William D. Rohrkaste of Dayton, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0031529, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1985.  
On June 13, 2005, relator, Dayton Bar Association, charged respondent with two 
violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility.  A panel of the Board of 
Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline heard the cause, including the 
parties’ comprehensive stipulations, and made findings of misconduct and a 
recommendation, which the board adopted. 
Misconduct 
{¶ 2} Respondent is a criminal-defense lawyer who since 1990 has 
practiced on his own or in a small law firm.  On August 26, 2004, respondent 
filed an appearance as counsel for Keion Baldwin, who had been indicted for 
felonious assault in Montgomery County Common Pleas Court. 
{¶ 3} In early September 2004, respondent solicited a relative of 
Baldwin’s for $100 for additional attorney fees.  When they met, respondent was 
visibly impaired and under the influence of crack cocaine.  Baldwin’s relative 
paid respondent, and respondent later used the money to buy illegal drugs.  
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
Baldwin’s family reported their suspicions of respondent’s illicit drug use to the 
court, and the court removed respondent from the case. 
{¶ 4} The parties stipulated and the board found that respondent’s 
conduct violated DR 1-102(A)(5) (prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct 
that is prejudicial to the administration of justice) and 1-102(A)(6) (prohibiting a 
lawyer from engaging in any other conduct that adversely reflects on the lawyer’s 
fitness to practice law). 
Recommended Sanction 
{¶ 5} In recommending a sanction for respondent’s misconduct, the 
panel and board weighed the aggravating and mitigating factors of his case.  See 
Section 10 of the Rules and Regulations Governing Procedure on Complaints and 
Hearings Before the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline 
(“BCGD Proc.Reg.”), which allows consideration of any factor relevant to the 
severity of discipline, including those specified in BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1) and 
(2). 
{¶ 6} In aggravation, the parties stipulated that respondent had used 
crack cocaine and abused alcohol since 2000.  Respondent has been loosely 
affiliated since 2002 with the Ohio Lawyers Assistance Program (“OLAP”), and 
he has participated, with mixed results, in other treatment programs, including 
Narcotics Anonymous (“NA”).  The parties agree that respondent has a history of 
entering long-term rehabilitation programs, making some progress in recovering 
from drug and alcohol dependency, and then dropping out of the programs. 
{¶ 7} In November 2004, however, respondent stopped using crack and 
drinking alcohol.  Respondent has since rededicated himself to recovery and 
entered various treatment programs, including a 12-step program to which he has 
a sustained commitment.  Respondent’s recovery has not been without incident, 
though, as even while abstaining he was terminated from one treatment program 
for fighting. 
January Term, 2006 
3 
{¶ 8} Relator did not charge respondent with a violation of DR 1-104 
(requiring lawyers to maintain sufficient professional-liability insurance or to 
disclose to clients that they do not), but respondent admitted the aggravating 
effect of his failure to comply with this rule.  Respondent reported that from mid-
2004 until December 2005, he did not have malpractice insurance and had not 
told an estimated 80 percent of his clients.  Respondent also acknowledged that he 
had not since 2001 been in compliance with the continuing-legal-education 
(“CLE”) requirements of Gov.Bar R. X. 
{¶ 9} Also in mitigation, the parties stipulated that on August 31, 2005, 
respondent agreed to an OLAP recovery contract having some terms more 
rigorous than in the standard contract.  Respondent signed a five-year contract 
rather than the regular two-year term and committed to membership in Alcoholics 
Anonymous (“AA”) or NA, at least thrice-weekly attendance at AA or NA 
meetings, and a host of other terms to assist in his recovery.  OLAP Executive 
Director Scott R. Mote testified that he was confident that respondent was not 
currently using alcohol or controlled substances.  Mote also said that after his 
years of experience with respondent, he was certain that respondent would 
honestly report a relapse immediately.  Moreover, Mote was confident in 
respondent’s current competence and integrity, provided that he did not relapse, to 
practice law. 
{¶ 10} Mote related that respondent was in substantial compliance with 
his OLAP contract and that Mote was happy with his progress.  There were, 
however, small deficiencies.  Respondent had on occasion failed (1) to timely 
document his AA and NA meeting attendance, (2) to check in with Mote by 
telephone at least once each week, and (3) to pay his $50 monthly administrative 
fee.  During his testimony, respondent assured the hearing panel that he would 
improve his compliance with his OLAP contract in the future. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
{¶ 11} Other evidence presented in mitigation included a letter from 
Judge Thomas M. Rose of the United States District Court for the Southern 
District of Ohio, commending respondent’s competence and integrity.  In another 
letter, Judge Jeffrey E. Froelich of the Montgomery County Common Pleas Court 
advised that he, Mote, and another judge had confronted respondent about his 
dependence.  Judge Froelich wrote that now respondent “is at the point where he 
sincerely wants to do something about his addiction, and has the knowledge and 
tools to succeed.”  In his letter, local attorney Jimmie Christon extolled 
respondent’s work ethic, compassion, and professional contributions to the 
Dayton community. 
{¶ 12} Relator, encouraged by respondent’s rededication to recovery, 
advocated a conditionally stayed two-year suspension to foster respondent’s 
continued commitment.  Respondent urged a conditionally stayed suspension of 
18 months.  The parties suggested essentially the same conditions for staying the 
suspension. 
{¶ 13} The 
panel 
recommended 
a 
two-year 
stayed 
suspension, 
incorporating the parties’ conditions.  Adopting the panel’s report, the board 
recommended a two-year suspension of respondent’s license, with the suspension 
to be stayed on the conditions that respondent (1) successfully complete and 
strictly comply with all requirements of his August 31, 2005 OLAP contract, 
particularly his promised abstention from alcohol and illegal drugs, (2) comply 
with DR 1-104 during the stayed suspension period, (3) satisfy by June 1, 2006, 
any remaining outstanding CLE requirements and thereafter remain in compliance 
during the stayed suspension period, and (4) make a written report to relator every 
six months during the stayed suspension showing compliance with these 
conditions. 
Review 
January Term, 2006 
5 
{¶ 14} We adopt the findings that respondent violated DR 1-102(A)(5) 
and (6).  We also agree that the recommended conditionally stayed suspension is 
appropriate. 
{¶ 15} Respondent is therefore suspended from the practice of law in 
Ohio for two years; however, the suspension is stayed on the conditions that 
respondent (1) successfully complete and strictly comply with all requirements of 
his OLAP contract, entered into on August 31, 2005, particularly his promised 
abstention from alcohol and illegal drugs, (2) comply with DR 1-104 during the 
stayed suspension period, (3) satisfy within 60 days hereof any remaining 
outstanding CLE requirements and thereafter remain in compliance during the 
stayed suspension period, and (4) make a written report to relator every six 
months during the stayed suspension showing compliance with these conditions.  
If respondent fails to comply with the conditions of the stay, the stay will be lifted 
and respondent shall serve the entire two-year suspension. 
{¶ 16} Costs are taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
RESNICK, PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’DONNELL and LANZINGER, 
JJ., concur. 
 
MOYER, C.J., and O’CONNOR, J., dissent. 
__________________ 
 
MOYER, C.J., dissenting. 
{¶ 17} I respectfully dissent.  We recently observed, “Our goal in this and 
other cases involving attorneys whose misconduct was motivated by a drug or 
alcohol addiction is to tailor the sanction to assist and monitor the attorney's 
recovery.”  Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Washington, 109 Ohio St.3d 308, 2006-Ohio-
2423, 847 N.E.2d 435, ¶ 9.  Given respondent’s history of drug and alcohol abuse, 
culminating with his removal from a case by a trial court, I believe the sanction 
should be more serious.  A two-year suspension from the practice of law with 18 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
months of the suspension stayed on conditions would be more consistent with 
sanctions we have ordered in cases presenting similar conduct and allow 
respondent to focus his efforts on recovery. 
{¶ 18} I would suspend respondent for 24 months, with 18 months stayed 
on the conditions required by the majority. 
 
O’CONNOR, J., concurs in the foregoing dissenting opinion. 
__________________ 
 
Barbara E. Reno; and Coolidge, Wall, Finlay, Johnson & Beard, L.L.C., 
and David M. Rickert, for relator. 
 
Gary C. Schaengold, for respondent. 
________________________