[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Lawson, 130 Ohio St.3d 184, 2011-Ohio-4673.] 

DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. LAWSON. 

[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Lawson, 

130 Ohio St.3d 184, 2011-Ohio-4673.] 

Attorneys—Misconduct—Felony conviction for conspiracy to obtain Schedule II 

drugs by deception—Advising client to engage in illegal activity—Prior 

disciplinary violations—Permanent disbarment. 

(No. 2011-0131—Submitted May 25, 2011—Decided September 20, 2011.) 

ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 

Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 09-098.

__________________ 

Per Curiam. 

{¶ 1} Respondent, Kenneth L. Lawson, Attorney Registration No. 

0042468, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1989. In 2007, pursuant 

to Gov.Bar R. V(5a), this court ordered an interim remedial suspension against 

respondent, pending final disposition of disciplinary proceedings based on 

multiple instances of professional misconduct. Disciplinary Counsel v. Lawson, 

113 Ohio St.3d 1508, 2007-Ohio-2333, 866 N.E.2d 508. 

{¶ 2} On July 9, 2008, this court ordered respondent indefinitely 

suspended, finding that he had neglected and failed to properly represent 15 

clients, failed to return unearned fees, stole settlement funds from six clients, 

misused his IOLTA account to conceal his personal funds from creditors, failed to 

cooperate in numerous grievance investigations, and made repeated dishonest 

statements to clients and relator during investigation of these matters. Cincinnati 

Bar Assn. v. Lawson, 119 Ohio St.3d 58, 2008-Ohio-3340, 891 N.E.2d 749. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

2

{¶ 3} On December 7, 2009, a second disciplinary complaint was filed 

against respondent, alleging that in August 2003, respondent entered into a 

conspiracy with Dr. Walter Broadnax and George Beatty to obtain Schedule II 

prescription drugs by deception. Relator recommended that respondent be 

permanently disbarred. Respondent recommended dismissal or a second 

indefinite suspension. The Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 

Discipline concluded that respondent had committed the infractions alleged in the 

complaint and recommended an indefinite suspension, to run consecutively to the 

indefinite suspension that respondent was currently serving. For the reasons that 

follow, we depart from the board’s recommendation and order that respondent be 

permanently disbarred. 

Misconduct 

{¶ 4} Beginning in August 2003, respondent entered into a conspiracy 

with Dr. Walter Broadnax and George Beatty to illegally obtain the prescription 

drugs Percodan, Percocet, and OxyContin by deception. Throughout this 

conspiracy, respondent was also acting as Dr. Broadnax’s attorney, working for 

free in exchange for prescriptions. 

{¶ 5} Later in the conspiracy, in November 2004, respondent orchestrated 

an elaborate scheme to bilk his client/coconspirator, Dr. Broadnax, out of 

$50,000. Respondent falsely advised the doctor that his phone had been tapped 

and that he was about to be indicted as the result of a criminal investigation by the 

Bureau of Workers’ Compensation for irregular billing practices. Respondent 

told Dr. Broadnax that for $50,000, respondent could bribe state officials to make 

the investigation “go away.” Respondent then promised Dr. Broadnax that he 

would provide him with the incriminating evidence, which the doctor could then 

destroy. 
January Term, 2011 

3

{¶ 6} All of these claims respondent made to his client, Dr. Broadnax, 

were false. Respondent admitted that he had made these false claims to frighten 

the doctor into giving him $50,000. After Dr. Broadnax was unable to come up 

with the $50,000, respondent and Beatty falsely advised him that they would 

“loan” him the $50,000 for the bribe that respondent would deliver to the state 

official. When Dr. Broadnax was later unable to repay the “loan,” respondent 

used this indebtedness to pressure the doctor into writing illegal prescriptions 

without any further compensation from respondent. 

{¶ 7} Between November 2004 and January 2007, Dr. Broadnax wrote 

approximately 700 to 800 prescriptions for respondent and Beatty. To avoid 

triggering an investigation by law enforcement, respondent went so far as to 

provide Dr. Broadnax with names of people for him to record as the recipients of 

the prescriptions. Some of the names used on the prescriptions were those of 

former or current clients, sometimes with their knowledge and/or assistance and 

sometimes without. Sometimes respondent would pay the party for whom the 

prescription was written to fill the prescription and return it to him. For example, 

respondent used two clients whom he had represented in multiple felony charges 

for drug trafficking and possession in this fraudulent scheme, further jeopardizing 

them. In addition, respondent used at least three employees from his law office to 

fill the prescriptions made out in their names and then provide the drugs to 

respondent. Respondent even obtained a prescription in the names of his daughter 

and a friend of his daughter. 

{¶ 8} Sometimes respondent would pay Dr. Broadnax $100 per 

prescription. Other times, he provided free legal services for the drugs. 

Moreover, respondent also purchased prescription drugs and cocaine from his 

coconspirator, George Beatty, and others, including his wife’s cousin. To cover 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

4

up his behavior, respondent lied to judges and other attorneys, telling them he had 

M.S. or Lou Gehrig’s disease. 

{¶ 9} In September 2008, respondent was indicted in federal court on 

conspiracy to obtain Schedule II controlled substances by deception in violation 

of Section 843(a)(3), Title 21, U.S.Code, between August 2003 and January 

2007, a felony. A plea agreement was filed under which respondent pleaded 

guilty to conspiring with Dr. Broadnax, George Beatty, and others to unlawfully 

obtain possession of Schedule II controlled substances by deception. On April 14, 

2009, respondent was sentenced to 24 months’ incarceration, one year of 

supervised release, and 1,000 hours of community service. 

{¶ 10} As a result of respondent’s felony conviction, this court entered an 

interim suspension order in July 2009. In re Lawson, 122 Ohio St.3d 1485, 2009-

Ohio-3752, 910 N.E.2d 1038. 

Violations 

{¶ 11} The panel found and the board agreed that respondent had violated 

the following Disciplinary Rules of the Code of Professional Responsibility: DR 

1-102(A)(3), prohibiting illegal conduct involving moral turpitude; 1-102(A)(4), 

prohibiting conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation; 1-

102(A)(5), prohibiting conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice; 

1-102(A)(6), prohibiting conduct that adversely reflects on the lawyer’s fitness to 

practice law; 5-101(A)(1), prohibiting a lawyer from accepting employment if the 

lawyer’s professional judgment will be affected by the lawyer’s financial and 

personal interests; 7-102(A)(7), prohibiting a lawyer from counseling a client in 

conduct that the lawyer knows to be illegal; and 7-102(A)(8), prohibiting a lawyer 

from knowingly engaging in illegal conduct. 

 
January Term, 2011 

5

Aggravation and Mitigation 

{¶ 12} Pursuant to Section 10(B) 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 found the following 

aggravating factors: (1) prior disciplinary offense (BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(a)), 

(2) dishonest or selfish motive (BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(b)), (3) pattern of 

misconduct (BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(c)), and (4) multiple offenses (BCGD 

Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(d)). 

{¶ 13} The panel further found the following factors in mitigation to be 

present: (1) full and free disclosure to the disciplinary authority or cooperative 

attitude toward the proceedings (BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(d)), (2) character and 

reputation (BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(e)), (3) imposition of other penalties or 

sanctions (BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(f)), (4) chemical dependency (BCGD 

Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(g)), and (5) other interim rehabilitation (BCGD Proc.Reg. 

10(B)(2)(h)). 

Sanction 

{¶ 14} Relator recommended that respondent be disbarred from the 

practice of law. Respondent sought an indefinite suspension. The panel and 

board recommended that respondent be indefinitely suspended from the practice 

of law with specified conditions for reinstatement. They also recommended that 

the suspension run consecutively to the first indefinite suspension. 

{¶ 15} Although respondent in his objections to the board’s report argued 

that his current misconduct was part of his initial misconduct, and therefore this 

matter is res judicata, respondent’s three-and-a-half-year conspiracy with Dr. 

Walter Broadnax and George Beatty to illegally obtain prescription drugs by 

deception, respondent’s misconduct towards his client, Dr. Broadnax, and 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

6

respondent’s felony conviction were not matters charged in the prior disciplinary 

complaint. 

{¶ 16} In 2008, this court was aware of respondent’s chemical dependency 

issues, but we were unaware of the conduct of which respondent was ultimately 

convicted. Respondent’s prior disciplinary case was decided in July 2008. 

Respondent was not charged with criminal conduct until September 2008, several 

months later, and was not sentenced until April 2009. Thus, it was not possible 

for the board and this court to consider the issues surrounding respondent’s felony 

conviction. 

{¶ 17} In respondent’s first disciplinary case, this court noted the 

“pervasive pattern of professional misconduct.” Id., 119 Ohio St.3d 58, 2008-

Ohio-3340, 891 N.E.2d 749, ¶ 2. However, the majority emphasized the 

“compelling” evidence “showing how respondent’s chemical dependence had 

contributed to cause his misconduct.” Id., ¶ 68. At that time, the court noted the 

significant evidence of respondent’s efforts to address his chemical dependence. 

Id., ¶ 68-71. The court agreed with the panel and board’s conclusion that 

respondent had made a case for eventually practicing law again based on the 

evidence of his character, reputation, remorse, chemical dependence, and 

recovery efforts. Id., ¶ 74. 

{¶ 18} At the time of the first case, Chief Justice Moyer issued a strong 

dissent in which he concluded that in view of the seriousness and frequency of the 

misconduct at issue, he would disbar the respondent. Id., ¶ 76 (Moyer, C.J., 

dissenting). The dissent acknowledged respondent’s chemical dependency, but 

noted that respondent “ignored his clients’ interests and stole their money. He 

used his client trust * * * account to avoid creditors and purchase drugs. He lied 

to the Disciplinary Counsel about his illegal use of drugs, as well as his use of 

settlement proceeds and a client trust [account] for personal uses. The great 
January Term, 2011 

7

weight of his misconduct cannot be lifted by the mitigating factors cited by the 

majority.” Id., ¶ 80 (Moyer, C.J., dissenting).

{¶ 19} Because we conclude that respondent’s pervasive scheme in which 

he scammed his own clients and exploited dozens of current and former clients, 

office staff, and his own daughter were not part of the facts this court passed 

judgment on in respondent’s prior disciplinary case, we reject the sanction 

recommended by the board. We believe that an indefinite suspension would fall 

short of protecting the public, which this court has articulated is the primary goal 

of the attorney disciplinary system. In re Disbarment of Lieberman (1955), 163 

Ohio St. 35, 41, 56 O.O. 23, 125 N.E.2d 328; Warren Cty. Bar Assn. v. Marshall, 

121 Ohio St.3d 197, 2009-Ohio-501, 903 N.E.2d 280, ¶ 19. 

{¶ 20} Chemical dependency and mental-health impairments present a 

significant problem for attorneys and the disciplinary system. But the harm 

respondent inflicted on his clients, his office staff, the profession, and the 

administration of justice through his elaborate and continuing pattern of 

misconduct outweighs the mitigation of his substance-abuse issues. Although 

respondent attempts to minimize his criminal acts and illegal conduct involving 

moral turpitude by arguing that he did not distribute medications to others, the 

cumulative nature of respondent’s misconduct, beginning with his first 

disciplinary case involving multiple clients, and ending with his scheme to scam 

clients, staff, and the system, merits disbarment. 

{¶ 21} This court has disbarred attorneys for similar or less egregious 

conduct than that demonstrated by respondent. For example, most recently in 

Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Farrell, 129 Ohio St.3d 223, 2011-Ohio-2879, 951 

N.E.2d 390, this court disbarred an attorney who had previously been suspended 

from the practice of law for two years, stayed on conditions, based on findings 

that he had fabricated documents, forged his wife’s signature to a power of 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

8

attorney, lied to secure the notarization of the power of attorney, and then used the 

forged document to obtain credit. Id., ¶ 6-10, 23. 

{¶ 22} In Farrell, this court concluded, as we do here, that the attorney 

displayed the same deceit as he had in his earlier disciplinary case. Id. at ¶ 33. 

Although we concluded that Farrell’s depression appeared to be the result, rather 

than the cause, of his misconduct, while respondent’s chemical dependence 

clearly was a contributing factor in his misconduct, the result should be the same. 

Both Farrell and respondent demonstrated a penchant for lying and deceit. Farrell 

engaged in a six-year pattern of pathological lying and deceptive conduct. 

Respondent engaged in a three-and-a-half-year pattern of similar pathological 

lying and deceit. 

{¶ 23} In Farrell, we emphasized three cases that are equally relevant 

here: 

{¶ 24} “We have permanently disbarred attorneys who have demonstrated 

a proclivity for lying and deceit. In Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Deaton, 102 Ohio 

St.3d 19, 2004-Ohio-1587, 806 N.E.2d 503, ¶ 3-22, an attorney had repeatedly 

lied and deceived his clients and his firm to cover up his neglect of client matters. 

Observing that the attorney had deliberately concealed his neglect to protect his 

personal interests, and adopting a master commissioner’s finding that the attorney 

was predisposed to dishonesty and was lacking in integrity, we concluded that an 

indefinite suspension was too lenient. Id. at ¶ 27, 30. Therefore, we permanently 

disbarred the attorney. Id. at ¶ 32. 

{¶ 25} “Similarly, in Disciplinary Counsel v. Manogg (1996), 74 Ohio 

St.3d 213, 214-216, 658 N.E.2d 257, we permanently disbarred an attorney who 

had been convicted on two felony counts of using false Social Security numbers, 

had created several aliases, and had made up fake property deeds and appraisals to 

obtain fraudulent mortgage loans. In doing so, we stated that we were ‘most 
January Term, 2011 

9

troubled * * * by respondent’s propensity to scheme and deceive without any 

moral appreciation for the lies he tells or the fraud he perpetrates.’ Id. at 217. 

And in Trumbull Cty. Bar Assn. v. Kafantaris, 121 Ohio St.3d 387, 2009-Ohio1389, 904 N.E.2d 875, ¶ 6-7, 15, we found that permanent disbarment was the 

only appropriate sanction for an attorney who, among other things, submitted an 

affidavit to this court falsely stating that he had complied with the terms of a 

previous suspension order. Likewise, we agree that respondent’s pattern of lying 

and deceit strongly suggests that he lacks the ability to conform his behavior to 

the ethical standards incumbent upon attorneys in this state.” Farrell, 129 Ohio 

St.3d 223, 2011-Ohio-2879, 951 N.E.2d 390, ¶ 34-35. 

{¶ 26} Other examples of disbarment that are relevant to this case include 

Disciplinary Counsel v. Longo (2002), 94 Ohio St.3d 219, 761 N.E.2d 1042, 

where this court disbarred the respondent after he pleaded guilty to misprision of 

a felony. Longo was found to have violated three Disciplinary Rules: DR 1-

102(A)(3) (illegal conduct involving moral turpitude), 1-102(A)(4) (conduct 

involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation), and 1-102(A)(6) 

(conduct adversely reflecting on the lawyer’s fitness to practice law). Here, 

respondent has been held responsible for violating those three Disciplinary Rules, 

as well as four others, including those prohibiting conduct prejudicial to the 

administration of justice and knowingly engaging in illegal conduct. 

{¶ 27} Further, in Disciplinary Counsel v. Bein, 105 Ohio St.3d 62, 2004-

Ohio-7012, 822 N.E.2d 358, this court disbarred an attorney following felony 

convictions for conspiring to engage in the interstate transportation of stolen 

property and conspiring to engage in money laundering. We noted that “[a] 

lawyer who engages in the kind of criminal conduct committed by respondent 

violates the duty to maintain personal honesty and integrity, which is one of the 

most basic professional obligations owed by lawyers to the public. Respondent’s 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

10

misconduct was harmful not only to the businesses affected but also to the legal 

profession, which is and ought to be a high calling dedicated to the service of 

clients and the public good.” Id. at ¶ 13. This principle is equally applicable in 

this case. Respondent’s elaborate scheme was harmful not only to his clients, 

staff, and family, but to the legal profession and the administration of justice. 

{¶ 28} In Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Fatica (1971), 28 Ohio St.2d 40, 57 

O.O.2d 158, 274 N.E.2d 763, the respondent, an attorney and member of city 

council, was charged with soliciting and accepting money to influence his vote on 

an application for transfer of a state liquor permit. This court noted that “[a] 

civilized society cannot long remain without implicit confidence in those who 

occupy responsible positions of public trust, including both public officials, and 

members of the bar who are ‘officers of the court.’ The solicitation and 

acceptance of a bribe by such a person is, by its very nature, so serious as to 

warrant, if not to compel, permanent removal from such a position of trust.” Id. at 

43. In the case at bar, respondent offered to bribe a public official during his 

scheme to defraud his own client. 

{¶ 29} In Toledo Bar Assn. v. Neller, 98 Ohio St.3d 314, 2003-Ohio-774, 

784 N.E.2d 689, this court disbarred an attorney who was convicted of five felony 

counts: one count of conspiracy to distribute cocaine, marijuana, and heroin and 

four counts of unlawful use of a communication facility, all in violation of federal 

law. Moreover, Neller furthered and promoted the conspiracy by advising his 

client on ways to avoid detection of illegal activities. In spite of similarly 

glowing testimonials by the legal community regarding Neller’s significant 

contributions as an outspoken advocate for minorities, this court held that “no 

mitigating circumstances can undo the harm of respondent’s integral role in this 

drug ring.” Respondent, too, engaged in a drug ring of his own creation, which 

included scamming his own clients and using and abusing other current and 
January Term, 2011 

11

former clients, office staff, and his own family. He enlisted these parties and in 

some cases made them accomplices to his criminal enterprise. He put them all at 

risk for criminal charges of their own. 

{¶ 30} Moreover, this court has permanently disbarred attorneys in the 

past for less pervasive misconduct in their first disciplinary case. For example, in 

Disciplinary Counsel v. Phillips, 108 Ohio St.3d 331, 2006-Ohio-1064, 843 

N.E.2d 775, this court disbarred an assistant prosecuting attorney with no prior 

disciplinary violations when he accepted bribes to fix criminal cases. Id., ¶ 4-6. 

Although the assistant prosecutor violated the law while he served in a position of 

public trust, the court also considered his strong evidence of mitigation regarding 

his chemical dependency. Id., ¶ 13. However, we noted that “any mitigating 

factor in a disciplinary case like this must be weighed against the seriousness of 

the rule violations that the lawyer has committed.” Id. Although it can be argued 

that respondent was not in a position of public trust like the assistant prosecutor, 

that fact is offset by respondent’s prior disciplinary action and commission of a 

felony. Respondent violated ethical prohibitions against illegal conduct and 

advising clients to engage in illegal acts. He also solicited a client to participate 

in a phony scheme to bribe a state official. Moreover, respondent was aware of 

this deception during the 2008 disciplinary proceeding and failed to disclose it, 

which conflicts with his protestations of remorse. 

Client Security Fund and Money Owed 

{¶ 31} Respondent’s misconduct affected numerous clients beyond the 15 

in his prior disciplinary case and those in his current disciplinary case. The Client 

Security Fund (“CSF”) has made awards to over 30 of respondent’s former 

clients, totaling over $300,000. Over 20 of those clients were in addition to those 

identified in respondent’s current and prior disciplinary cases. All of these clients 

received CSF awards due to respondent’s dishonest conduct. Despite the fact that 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

12

at the time of the hearing, respondent held a job earning around $40,000 per year, 

respondent admitted that he had made no effort to begin to reimburse the CSF or 

this court for the costs associated with his prior disciplinary case, despite this 

court’s order to do so. 

OLAP Contract Requirements 

{¶ 32} In addition to owing thousands of dollars to former clients and in 

court costs, respondent has failed to comply with his Ohio Lawyers Assistance 

Program (“OLAP”) contract as this court previously ordered. Respondent entered 

into a five-year OLAP contract in April 2007. This contract required that 

respondent contact his OLAP monitor at least weekly and submit monthly logs of 

his attendance at Alcoholics Anonymous meetings. In this court’s prior indefinitesuspension order, respondent was ordered to comply with his OLAP contract. 

Despite these requirements, respondent has failed to have weekly contact with his 

OLAP monitor and has failed to submit any AA meeting logs to OLAP. 

{¶ 33} At his hearing, respondent attempted to suggest that his volunteer 

activities with the Hawaii lawyers’ assistance program were somehow equivalent 

to compliance with his OLAP contract. However, the evidence established that 

respondent’s AA sponsor lives in Ohio and has only limited telephone and e-mail 

contact with respondent in Hawaii. Further, respondent has not entered into a 

formal, written monitoring contract with the Hawaii lawyers’ assistance program. 

Respondent was ordered to comply with his OLAP contract, and he admitted that 

he has not done so. This failure to comply with an order from this court further 

erodes our confidence in respondent’s ability to practice law in accordance with 

the high standards required of all attorneys. 

Conclusion 

{¶ 34} “The purpose of disbarment is not to punish the individual. It is 

intended to protect the public, the courts and the legal profession. Thus the moral 
January Term, 2011 

13

character of an attorney is at all times to be scrutinized for the purpose of insuring 

that protection. And such moral character is necessarily at issue in a disbarment 

proceeding. If a prior attempt at discipline has been ineffective to provide the 

protection intended for the public, then such further safeguards should be imposed 

as will either tend to effect the reformation of the offender or remove him entirely 

from the practice. The discipline for a repeated offense may be much greater than 

would have been imposed were it a first offense, yet such greater discipline is not 

a meting out of further punishment for prior acts but is a determination of the 

attorney's fitness to practice.” Lieberman, 163 Ohio St. at 41, 56 O.O. 23,125 

N.E.2d 328. 

{¶ 35} Respondent could have been found unfit to continue to practice law 

in 2008. Had this court known of the full extent of respondent’s abuse of the 

legal system, of his deception, and of his criminal enterprise in 2008, the court 

likely would have disbarred him at that time. While we are sensitive to the 

respondent’s struggles with chemical dependency, this elaborate and felonious 

conspiracy to obtain prescription narcotics by exploiting current and former 

clients, staff, and family goes far beyond simple drug addiction. Respondent 

intentionally deceived clients, family, office staff, fellow attorneys, and judges 

alike. 

{¶ 36} Having weighed the aggravating and mitigating factors in this case 

and having considered the sanctions previously imposed for comparable conduct, 

we reject the board’s recommendation. Accordingly, we permanently disbar 

Kenneth L. Lawson from the practice of law in Ohio. Costs are taxed to the 

respondent. 

Judgment accordingly. 

PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’DONNELL, CUPP, and MCGEE BROWN, 

JJ., concur. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

14

O’CONNOR, C.J., and LANZINGER, J., concur in judgment only. 

__________________ 

 Jonathan E. Coughlan, Disciplinary Counsel, and Robert R. Berger, Senior 

Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. 

 Bieser, Greer & Landis, L.L.P., and David C. Greer, for respondent. 

______________________