Disciplinary Counsel v. Martin - Ohio Supreme Court Opinion - Ohio Supreme Court Decision

	ROMINGER LEGAL
		Ohio Court Cases and Opinions - Ohio Legal Research
					Need Legal Help?
					Need Legal Help?
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER			LEGAL HEADLINES - CASE LAW - LEGAL FORMS	NOT FINDING WHAT YOU NEED? -RESEARCH

This court case was taken from the web sites of the Ohio Courts. Search our site for more cases - CLICK HERE

LEGAL RESEARCH

COURT REPORTERS

PRIVATE INVESTIGATORS

PROCESS SERVERS

DOCUMENT RETRIEVERS

EXPERT WITNESSES

Find a Private Investigator

Find an Expert Witness

Find a Process Server

Case Law - save on Lexis / WestLaw.

Legal News - Legal Headlines

OPINIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
The full texts of the opinions of the Supreme Court of
Ohio are being transmitted electronically beginning May 27,
1992, pursuant to a pilot project implemented by Chief Justice
Thomas J. Moyer.
Please call any errors to the attention of the Reporter's
Office of the Supreme Court of Ohio. Attention: Walter S.
Kobalka, Reporter, or Deborah J. Barrett, Administrative
Assistant. Tel.: (614) 466-4961; in Ohio 1-800-826-9010.
Your comments on this pilot project are also welcome.
NOTE: Corrections may be made by the Supreme Court to the
full texts of the opinions after they have been released
electronically to the public. The reader is therefore advised
to check the bound volumes of Ohio St.3d published by West
Publishing Company for the final versions of these opinions.
The advance sheets to Ohio St.3d will also contain the volume
and page numbers where the opinions will be found in the bound
volumes of the Ohio Official Reports.

Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Martin.
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Martin (1994), 0hio
St.3d .]
Attorneys at law -- Misconduct -- One-year suspension with last
six months stayed with conditions -- Conviction for drug
abuse.
(No. 94-492 -- Submitted April 19, 1994 -- Decided June
22, 1994.
On Certified Report by the Board of Commissioners on
Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 93-44.
In a complaint filed on April 16, 1993, relator, Office of
Disciplinary Counsel, charged that respondent, Linda Sue Martin
of Youngstown, Ohio, Attorney Registration No. 0025597, had
violated DR 1-102(A)(3) (engaging in illegal conduct involving
moral turpitude) and 1-102(A)(6) (engaging in conduct that
adversely reflects on attorney's fitness to practice law).
Respondent stipulated to her conviction for having violated
R.C. 2925.11 (drug abuse), the fourth-degree felony on which
both counts of misconduct were based.1 The matter was heard by
a panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and
Discipline of the Supreme Court on December 9, 1993.
The parties stipulated to the events underlying
respondent's conviction as follows:
"* * * On November 7, 1989, at 2:30 a.m., Respondent was
stopped for a traffic violation. An outstanding arrest warrant
for failing to appear on a prior traffic incident was still
open. During a search of Respondent's person, a piece of paper
containing cocaine was found in her jacket pocket.
"* * * On January 29, 1990, Respondent was indicted by the
Cuyahoga County Grand Jury for one count of Drug Abuse * * * in
violation fo ORC 2925.11. On April 30, 1990, Respondent filed
a Motion for Treatment in Lieu of Conviction (ORC 2951.04.1),
which was granted on October 24, 1990. Respondent was ordered
into rehabilition for two years, including a drug treatment
program.
"* * * Approximately four (4) months later, Respondent
failed to pass a urinalysis drug screen. On February 22, 1991,
she was ordered into an in-patient treatment program.

"* * * On August 1, 1991, Respondent tested positive for
cocaine again[,] which led to her being found in violation of
her probation on August 12, 1991. The Court found her guilty
of the original Drug Abuse charge, then sentenced [her] to the
Ohio Reformatory for Women for six months. Her sentence was
suspended, and she was placed on probation for two years,
ordered to attend AA/NA [Alcoholics Anonymous and Narcotics
Anonymous] and to complete an in-patient drug program.
Respondent has successfully completed probation."
At the hearing, respondent testified about her life prior
to her conviction and the changes she has made since that
time. Respondent graduated from law school in December 1981,
but has never practiced law. She instead worked as a sales
manager, and later, a stock broker until she was laid off in
1988. Respondent then became a restaurant bartender, the job
she held at the time of of her arrest.
Respondent spent nineteen days in jail awaiting a hearing
after violating her probation the second time. When her
sentence was suspended, she was ordered to complete a minimum
stay of ninety days at a halfway house. She stayed there
voluntarily for three more months, receiving counseling and
group therapy for what she recognized to be a drug and alcohol
addiction. Respondent moved back in with her parents after
leaving the halfway house in February 1992.
Respondent continued to attend counseling sessions twice a
week at the halfway house for more than one year after her
release. Now she regularly attends AA meetings and is a
sponsor of other members. In August 1993, she entered the Ohio
Lawyers' Assistance Program, which requires her to submit to
random substance abuse testing. Respondent was released from
her probation in December 1992, eight months early, and was
described by her parole officer as a model of compliance.
Numerous testimonials as to respondent's prognosis for
continued recovery were submitted for the panel's
consideration. Respondent's professional acquaintances,
friends, and family offered their support and confidence in her
ability to remain drug and alcohol free. Respondent also
described her renewed commitment to practicing law.
The panel found that respondent had violated the
Disciplinary Rules as charged in the complaint. Due to the
evidence of respondent's recovery, it accepted a joint
recommendation from the parties that she be suspended from the
practice of law for one year, with six months of that period to
be suspended on the condition that she completes a probation
period. However, the panel decided in favor of a three-year
probation period, rather than the two-year probation
recommended jointly, during which respondent is to maintain her
membership in the Ohio Lawyers' Assistance Program, to continue
her regular attendance at AA/NA meetings, and to periodically
submit to random testing for drug and alcohol use. The panel
also recommended that respondent be given credit for the
interim suspension imposed on July 9, 1993 as a result of her
conviction.
The board adopted the panel's findings and its
recommendation.

Geoffrey Stern, Disciplinary Counsel, and Sally Ann Steuk,

Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator.
Charles W. Kettlewell, for respondent.

Per Curiam. We have reviewed the record and concur in the
board's findings and recommendation, except for the proposed
credit for respondent's interim suspension. Therefore, we find
that Linda Sue Martin violated DR 1-102(A)(3) and (6), and she
is hereby suspended from the practice of law for one year, with
the last six months of that period to be stayed in favor of the
probation period and conditions recommended by the board.
Costs taxed to respondent.
Judgment accordingly.
Moyer, C.J., A.W. Sweeney, Douglas, Wright, Resnick, F.E.
Sweeney and Pfeifer, JJ., concur.

FOOTNOTE
1 Respondent was found guilty of the drug abuse charge in
August 1991, but the conviction was not reported by the judge
who entered it as required by former Gov. Bar R. V(9)(a)(i),
now Gov.Bar R. V(5)(A)(1). Thus, the suspension authorized by
Gov.Bar R. V was not invoked until July 9, 1993, after
respondent, herself, provided notice of her conviction.