Court Opinion

ID: 9801185
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 08:46:29.366797+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:51:48.306499
License: Public Domain

Lundberg Stratton, J.,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
{¶ 38} I concur in the opinion and judgment of the majority, except that I would begin the 18-month suspension now rather than waiting for respondent to apply to resume active status, if that ever occurs. I know of no precedent in this court for a similar delay in imposing discipline.
{¶ 39} If the argument is that we should still enforce discipline despite respondent’s retired status because he may apply to resume active status at any time, then it makes more sense to enforce the discipline now. That gives respondent an opportunity to reapply for active status at the expiration of the 18-*146month suspension, since other than this incident, he has had no discipline and otherwise has a good reputation in the community. The fact that respondent chooses to be retired at this time seems irrelevant. Delaying discipline seems to make the penalty even harsher.
Cathleen M. Bolek and Todd J. Andersen, for relator.
Richard S. Koblentz and Bryan L. Penvose, for respondent.
{¶ 40} Accordingly, I respectfully dissent as to the delay in the imposition of respondent’s suspension and would begin the 18-month suspension immediately.