[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 

Ohio State Bar Assn. v. Corrigan, Slip Opinion No. 2014-Ohio-3678.] 

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. 2014-OHIO-3678 

OHIO STATE BAR ASSOCIATION v. CORRIGAN. 

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, 

it may be cited as Ohio State Bar Assn. v. Corrigan, 

Slip Opinion No. 2014-Ohio-3678.] 

Judicial misconduct—Driving while under the influence of alcohol—Public 

reprimand. 

(No. 2013-1960—Submitted January 8, 2014—Decided September 27, 2014.) 

ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 

Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 2013-038. 

____________________ 

Per Curiam. 

{¶ 1} Respondent, Peter James Corrigan of Cleveland, Ohio, Attorney 

Registration No. 0066104, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1996. 

On July 15, 2013, relator, Ohio State Bar Association, charged Corrigan with 

professional misconduct after he was arrested and pleaded no contest to charges 

of operating a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol and impeding the 

roadway. Corrigan, a judge of the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas, was 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

2 

discovered slumped over the steering wheel of his vehicle, which was stopped in 

an intersection, while the vehicle’s transmission was in the drive position and his 

foot was on the brake. 

{¶ 2} A panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 

Discipline considered the cause on the parties’ consent-to-discipline agreement. 

See BCGD Proc.Reg. 11. An amended consent-to-discipline agreement was 

subsequently filed that restated the parties’ recommended sanction and cited a 

case in support of that recommendation.1

{¶ 3} In the amended consent-to-discipline agreement, Corrigan 

stipulates to the facts alleged in relator’s complaint and agrees that his conduct 

violated Jud.Cond.R. 1.2 (requiring a judge to act at all times in a manner that 

promotes public confidence in the independence, integrity, and impartiality of the 

judiciary and to avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety). 

{¶ 4} The parties stipulate that the mitigating factors present include 

Corrigan’s lack of a prior disciplinary record, his full and free disclosure to the 

disciplinary board, his voluntary participation in the Ohio Lawyers Assistance 

Program, and the imposition of other penalties, including a three-day jail sentence 

or driver-intervention program, the payment of a $500 fine and court costs, a oneyear driver’s license suspension, and a one-year period of community control. 

See BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(a), (d), and (f). The parties do not note any 

aggravating factors. Based upon these factors, the parties stipulate that the 

appropriate sanction for Corrigan’s misconduct is a public reprimand. 

{¶ 5} The panel and board found that the amended consent-to-discipline 

agreement conforms to BCGD Proc.Reg. 11 and recommend that we adopt the 

agreement in its entirety. In support of its recommendation, the panel refers to In 

 

1

 Since the amended consent-to-discipline agreement submitted by the parties is substantially 

identical to the original consent-to-discipline agreement, the court will consider the affidavit and 

exhibits that were submitted with the original agreement as part of the amended agreement. 
January Term, 2014 

3 

re Complaint Against Resnick, 108 Ohio St.3d 160, 2005-Ohio-6800, 842 N.E.2d 

31 (a public reprimand was an appropriate sanction for a justice arrested and 

convicted of driving a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol); 

Disciplinary Counsel v. Connor, 105 Ohio St.3d 100, 2004-Ohio-6902, 822 

N.E.2d 1235 (a six-month stayed suspension conditioned on compliance with the 

terms of the lawyers-assistance program was an appropriate sanction for a judge 

involved in multiple alcohol-related events); Disciplinary Counsel v. Bowling, 

127 Ohio St.3d 138, 2010-Ohio-5040, 937 N.E.2d 95 (a public reprimand was an 

appropriate sanction for a magistrate’s use of marijuana as a means of selfmedication). 

{¶ 6} We agree that Corrigan violated Jud.Cond.R. 1.2 and, as stated in 

the parties’ amended agreement, that this conduct warrants a public reprimand. 

Therefore, we adopt the parties’ amended consent-to-discipline agreement. 

{¶ 7} Accordingly, Peter James Corrigan is hereby publicly 

reprimanded. Costs are taxed to Corrigan. 

Judgment accordingly. 

O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, KENNEDY,

FRENCH, and O’NEILL, JJ., concur. 

____________________ 

Brian S. Sullivan, Jessica L. Tobias, and Eugene P. Whetzel, for relator. 

Michael E. Murman and Edward G. Kagels, for respondent. 

_________________________