Court Opinion

ID: 9801638
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 08:52:19.216334+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:54:19.460757
License: Public Domain

Lundberg Stratton, J.,
dissenting.
{¶ 14} I respectfully dissent. The panel adopted Engel’s proposed sanction of a public reprimand, and the board adopted the panel’s report in its entirety. The relator recommended a stayed six-month license suspension. However, this court has increased the sanction to a six-month actual suspension.
{¶ 15} The parties stipulated that three mitigating factors are present: the absence of a prior disciplinary record, cooperation with the disciplinary process, and the imposition of the additional penalties of criminal convictions and sentences. The board accepted these mitigating factors and also found that Engel had not had a dishonest or selfish motive and that he had presented evidence of his good character apart from the underlying misconduct. The board concluded that there were no aggravating factors and that Engel’s conduct caused no harm to anyone but himself.
{¶ 16} The panel had the opportunity to personally observe Engel and judge his credibility. I see no reason for this court to second-guess the panel’s determinations. Furthermore, the increase in penalty is out of proportion to the violation. Compare Disciplinary Counsel v. Forbes, 122 Ohio St.3d 171, 2009-Ohio-2623, 909 N.E.2d 629. I see no justice in increasing the penalty beyond all current recommendations. Therefore, I respectfully dissent.
*110Jonathan E. Coughlan, Disciplinary Counsel, and Robert R. Berger, Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator.
Crabbe, Brown, and James, L.L.P, Larry H. James, and Christina Curl, for respondent.