Disciplinary Counsel v. Mitchell - 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

1
Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Mitchell.
2
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Mitchell (1996), _____ Ohio St.3d _____.]
3
Attorneys at law -- Misconduct -- Indefinite suspension -- Conviction
4
of conspiracy to manufacture marijuana.
5

(No. 95-2531--Submitted January 24, 1996--Decided February 28,
6
1996.)
7
On Certified Report by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances
8
and Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 95-44.
9

By a complaint filed on June 5, 1995, relator, Office of Disciplinary
10
Counsel, charged, inter alia, that respondent, Steven F. Mitchell of
11
Cleveland, Ohio, Attorney Registration No. 0025044, had entered a plea of
12
guilty to one criminal count in the United States District Court for the
13
Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, and that he had thereby
14
violated DR 1-102(A)(3) (engaging in illegal conduct involving moral
15
turpitude), 1-102(A)(4) (engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud,
16
deceit, or misrepresentation), and 1-102(A)(6) (engaging in conduct that
17
adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law). Respondent was served
18
with the complaint, and filed an answer admitting most of the allegations

1
charged in the complaint, but also stating that he had not profited from the
2
business alleged in the complaint.
3

The matter was heard by a panel of the Board of Commissioners on
4
Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court ("board") on November
5
21, 1995. The parties presented a factual stipulation, which established that
6
respondent agreed to establish an indoor hydroponic marijuana cultivation
7
operation with a friend. With respondent's knowledge and assent, the
8
individuals harvested, processed, used, and distributed marijuana through
9
the operation until early 1991, when law enforcement officials seized 138
10
marijuana plants and equipment.
11

Supporting relator's complaint were certified copies of the criminal
12
information against respondent, the plea agreement between the parties, the
13
judgment entry of conviction against respondent (United States v. Steven
14
Mitchell [Nov. 17, 1994], United States District Court, Northern District of
15
Ohio, Eastern Division, case No. 1:93CR317, unreported) ordering him
16
incarcerated for the minimum sentence of forty-six months, the order
17
correcting respondent's sentence and reducing his incarceration to a four-
18
month term, and a certified copy of this court's entry indefinitely suspending

2

1
respondent following his conviction in case No. 1:93CR317. The judgment
2
entry reflects that respondent was convicted of the following felony: one
3
count of conspiracy to manufacture marijuana in violation of Sections 846
4
and 841(b)(1)(B)(vii), Title 21, U.S. Code.1 Respondent is currently
5
participating in any early supervised release program for this crime.
6

Respondent presented evidence of his treatment for drug and alcohol
7
abuse. Respondent also presented the affidavits of several friends and
8
acquaintances regarding his abilities to practice law and the dramatic
9
change in respondent following his treatment for drug and alcohol abuse.
10

Based on the foregoing, the panel found violations of DR 1-
11
102(A)(3), 1-102(A)(4), and 1-102(A)(6). It then recommended the
12
sanction recommended by relator, that respondent receive a two-year
13
suspension, from the time that he notified this court of his conviction (Dec.
14
13, 1993); that respondent not be readmitted until he had successfully
15
completed his federal probation; and that respondent assume the costs of the
16
proceedings and maintain his CLE requirements. The board adopted the
17
panel's findings and its recommendation.
18
-----------------------

3

1

Geoffrey Stern, Disciplinary Counsel, and Stacy M. Solochek,
2
Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator.
3

Theodore F. Stebbins, for respondent.
4
------------------------
5

Per Curiam. Having reviewed the record, we agree with the board's
6
findings of misconduct, but disagree with its recommended sanction.
7
Accordingly, given the gravity of respondent's crime, respondent is hereby
8
indefinitely suspended from the practice of law in Ohio. Costs taxed to
9
respondent.
10
Judgment accordingly.
11

MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, WRIGHT, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER
12
and COOK, JJ., concur.
13

1
Respondent was indefinitely suspended from the practice of law in
Ohio on April 5, 1995, for matters related to his conviction in the United
States District Court, Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, case No.
1:93CR317 on November 17, 1994. (Supreme Court case No. 95-598.)

4