Opinion ID: 2602274
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Count Three-Vehicular Drug-Related Arrests

Text: ¶ 11 Respondent admits that he entered a plea of guilty or of no contest to the following six criminal charges involving drug use and possession: (1) Actual physical control while under the influence of drugs, [25] possession of marijuana and possession of drug paraphernalia, Cleveland County, 12 June 1998: a one-year deferred sentence on each count; (2) Driving under the influence of drugs, Cleveland County, 30 October 1998: a one-year deferred sentence; (3) Actual physical control while under the influence of drugs, Cleveland County, 13 February 1999: a one-year deferred sentence; (4) Driving under the influence of drugs, McIntosh County, 2 May 1999: a two-year deferred sentence; (5) Driving under the influence of drugs, Pittsburg County, 27 June 1999: a one year suspended sentence; (6) Driving under the influence of drugs, Cleveland County, 4 October 1999: a one-year deferred sentence. Respondent stipulates that the conduct evidenced by these criminal charges violates the provisions of RGDP Rule 1.3 and ORPC Rules 8.4(b) and 8.4(d). [26] We accept respondent's stipulation  and find by clear and convincing evidence  that respondent's conduct violated the provisions of RGDP Rule 1.3 and ORPC Rule 8.4(b). Neither the stipulations nor the testimony or exhibits on file provide clear and convincing evidence that respondent's conduct violated ORPC Rule 8.4(d). That rule, properly understood, sanctions conduct that interferes with the administration of judicial process. It covers only severe interference with judicial proceedings or conduct of such a severe nature that it harms our system of representative litigation as a whole. [27] While respondent's drug-related misconduct was potentially dangerous both to himself and to others, it did not interfere with any judicial proceeding or harm our legal system as a whole. Respondent stands exonerated of that violation.