[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advanc e sheets, it may be cited as Disciplinary Counsel v. Cosgrove , Slip Opinion No. 2021-Ohio-2188.]

NOTICE This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is pu blished in an advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports. Readers are req uested to promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 65 South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographic al or other formal errors in the opini on, in order that corrections m ay be made before the opi nion is published.

S LIP O PINION N O
. 2021-O HIO -2188
D ISCIPLINARY C OUNSEL v . C OSGROVE
. [Until this opinion appears in t he Ohio Official Reports advanc e sheets, it may be cited as Disciplinary Counsel v. Cosgrove , Slip Opinion No. 2021-Ohio-2188.] Attorneys—Misconduct—Violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct— Attempted unlawful sexual conduct with a minor—Indefinite suspension with no credit for time served under interim felony suspension. (No. 2021-0208—Submitted Mar ch 31, 2021—Decided June 30, 2021.)
O N C ERTIFIED R EPORT by the Board of Professiona l Conduct of the Supreme Court, No. 2020-044.

______________ Per Curiam. {¶ 1} Respondent, Michael Francis Cosgr ove, of Cleveland Heights, Ohi o, Attorney Registration No. 0072795, w as admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 2000. On July 9, 2019, we suspended him from the practice of l aw on an interim basis following his conviction on a fourth-degree-felony count of attemptedS UPREME C OURT OF O HIO

2 unlawful sexual conduct with a minor. In re Cosgrove , 156 Ohio St.3d 1350, 2019-Ohio-2802, 130 N.E.3d 316. {¶ 2} In an August 11, 2020 complaint, relator, disciplinary counsel, alleged that the conduct underlyi ng Cosgrove’s criminal convict ion constitutes an illegal act that adversely reflects on his honesty, trustworthi ness, and fitness to practice law. {¶ 3} The parties submitted stipulati ons of fact and misconduct and a greed that Cosgrove should be indefinite ly suspended from the practic e of law. After considering those stipulations and 12 stipulated exhibits and h earing Cosgrove’s testimony, a three-member panel of the Board of Professional Co nduct issued a report finding that he had co mmitted the charged misconduct and recommending that he be indefinitely suspended from the practice of law with no credit for the
time served under his interim su spension. The board adopted th e findings and recommendation of the panel, a nd no objections have been filed. {¶ 4} We adopt the board’s findings of misconduct and recommended
sanction. Stipulated Facts and Misconduct {¶ 5} In November 2018, Cosgrove entered an online chatroom and began
a conversation with someone he believed to be a 15-year-old gir l. During that conversation, he discussed sexual matters, solicited the person he believed to be a minor to participate in sexual activity, and made arrangements to meet with the person. After the conversation e nded, Cosgrove drove to a park where he had arranged to meet with the pers on he believed to be a minor and discovered that he had been communicating with a l aw-enforcement officer who was p osing as a 15- year-old girl. Cosgrove was arrested and later indicted on cha rges of attempted
unlawful sexual conduct with a minor, importuning, and possessi on of criminal
tools.January Term, 2021

3 {¶ 6} In April 2019, in the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas, Cosgrove pleaded guilty to attempted unlawful sexual contact wi th a minor. The state dismissed the remaining charges. On May 30, 2019, the co urt found Cosgrove to be a Tier II sex offe nder and ordered him to forfei t his iPhone and submit a DNA specimen. The court then sentenced him to a two-y ear term of community control that required h im to (1) abide by all rules o f the probation department, (2) report as direct ed by his probation officer, (3 ) submit to a sexoffender assessment, (4) successf ully complete sex-offender cou nseling, (5) submit to polygraph examinations, (6) comply with all recom mendations of his treatment team, and (7) sub mit to random drug testing. In addition, the court ordered Cosgrove to be screened f or placement into the NorthWes t Community Corrections Center and, if eligible, to complete the community- based correctional-facility program. Further, he was ordered to cont inue treatment and follow all aftercare recommendations upon his release. At his disciplinary hearing, Cosgrove testified that he ultimately served 60 days i n the communitybased correctional-facility program. {¶ 7} The parties stipulated and the board found that Cosgrove’s cond uct violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(b) (prohibiting a lawyer from committ ing an illegal act that reflects adversely on the l awyer’s honesty or trustworthin ess) and 8.4(h) (prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct that adversely r eflects on the lawyer’s fitness to practice law). We accept these findings an d agree that Cosgrove’s conduct was sufficien tly egregious to constitute a s eparate violation of Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(h). See Disciplinary Couns el v. Bricker , 137 Ohio St.3d 35, 2013-Ohio-3998, 997 N.E.2d 500, ¶ 21.
Sanction {¶ 8} When imposing sanctions for atto rney misconduct, we consider al l relevant factors, including the e thical duties that the lawyer violated, theS UPREME C OURT OF O HIO

4 aggravating and mitigating factors listed in Gov.Bar R. V(13), and the sanctions imposed in similar cases. {¶ 9} As aggravating factors, the par ties and the board cited Cosgrov e’s dishonest and selfish motive and the vulnerability of his inten ded victim. See Gov.Bar R. V(13)(B)(2) and (8). As for mitigating factors, the board concurred with the parties’ stipulations t hat Cosgrove (1) does not have a history of prior discipline, (2) made full and free disclosure to the board and demonstrated a cooperative attitude toward the di sciplinary proceedings, (3) s ubmitted evidence of his good character and reputation, (4) established the exist ence of a qualifying mental disorder, and (5) particip ated in other interim rehabili tation. See Gov.Bar R. V(13)(C)(1), (4), (5), (7), and (8). In addition to complet ing his communitybased correctional-facility program, Cosgrove entered into a th ree-year contract with the Ohio Lawyers Assistance Program and was in full compli ance with that contract near the time of his disciplinary hearing. {¶ 10} The board recommends that we adopt the parties’ stipulated sanction of an indefinite suspension with no credit for time Co sgrove has served under his interim felony suspens ion. In support of that sancti on, the board cites
three cases in which we have im posed the same sanction on other attorneys convicted of similar crimes for a ttempting to arrange sexual en counters with
minors. See Disciplinary Counsel v. Schwarz , 160 Ohio St.3d 194, 2020-Ohio1542, 155 N.E.3d 830 (attorney convicted of importuning for exc hanging sexually charged text messages and attempting to meet with an undercoverlawenforcement officer posing as a 15-year-old boy); Disciplinary Counsel v.
Goldblatt , 118 Ohio St.3d 310, 2008-Ohio-2458, 888 N.E.2d 1091 (attorney convicted of compelling prostitu tion and possessing criminal to ols after he attempted to arrange a sexual e ncounter with an undercover FBI agent posing as a pimp who promised to procure th e attorney an underage girl in e xchange for $200); and Disciplinary Counsel v. Andrews , 124 Ohio St.3d 523, 2010-Ohio-January Term, 2021

5 931, 924 N.E.2d 829 (attorney convict ed of attempted tampering with evidence and a misdemeanor count of attempted importuning after he engag ed in online conversations soliciting sexual activity from an adult posing a s a 13-year-old girl). {¶ 11} After independently reviewing the record in this case, we adopt the board’s findings of misconduct a nd agree that an indefinite sus pension with no
credit for time served under our i nterim suspension order is th e appropriate
sanction in this case. As we stated in Schwarz and Goldblatt , “ ‘an indefinite suspension will help protect the public, deter other lawyers fr om similar wrongdoing, and preserve the public’s trust in the legal profes sion.’ ” Schwarz at ¶ 12, quoting Goldblatt at ¶ 30. {¶ 12} The board also recommends that we condition Cosgrove’s reinstatement to the practice of law on proof that he is in com pliance with the terms of his court-ordered community control. However, we find that this condition is subsumed into Gov.Bar R. V(25)(D)(2), which requir es an attorney seeking reinstatement to the practice of law prior to completin g a term of probation, community control, in tervention in lieu of convictio n, or any sanction imposed as part of a sentence for a felony conviction to submit a petition that includes (1) an affidavit from the trial judge as evidence that the attorney is in compliance with all terms and conditions of any criminal sancti ons, to include community control, and (2) facts to establish by clear and conv incing evidence that the attorney should be reinstated to the practice of law w hile subject to any of
those sanctions.
Conclusion {¶ 13} Accordingly, Michael Francis Cosgrove is indefinitely suspended from the practice of law in Ohio with no credit for the time se rved under the interim felony suspension imposed on July 9, 2019. Costs are t axed to Cosgrove. Judgment accordingly.S UPREME C OURT OF O HIO

6 O’C ONNOR , C.J., and K ENNEDY , F ISCHER , D E W INE , D ONNELLY , S TEWART , and B RUNNER , JJ., concur.

_________________ Joseph M. Caligiuri, Disciplinar y Counsel, and Audrey E. Varwig , Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. Michael Francis Cosgrove, pro se.

_________________