Disciplinary Counsel v. Phillips - 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. Phillips.
2 [Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Phillips (1997), _____Ohio St.3d ____.]
3 Attorneys at law -- Misconduct -- One-year suspension reinstated --
4
Failure to comply with conditions of probation of previous
5
disciplinary proceeding.
6
(No. 94-1810 -- Submitted January 22, 1997 -- Decided April 30,
7 1997.)
8
ON CERTIFIED REPORT of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances
9 and Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 93-86.
10
On December 7, 1994, we suspended respondent, Thomas Ewing
11 Phillips of Chillicothe, Ohio, Attorney Registration No. 0008582, from the
12 practice of law for one year, with that one year stayed, and we placed
13 respondent on probation for two years on the following conditions: (a) that
14 an attorney appointed by Disciplinary Counsel, relator, monitor
15 respondent's law office and practice and management for these two years,
16 (b) that respondent attend twelve hours of continuing legal education in law
17 office management in addition to the twenty-four hours of CLE he is
18 required to complete by December 31, 1996, (c) that respondent enter into a
19 contract with the Ohio Lawyers Assistance Program ("OLAP") and abide by

1 its terms for a minimum of the next two years, and (d) that no disciplinary
2 complaints be certified to the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and
3 Discipline ("board") by a probable cause panel within the next two years.
4 Disciplinary Counsel v. Phillips (1994), 71 Ohio St.3d. 98, 642 N.E.2d 344.
5
On February 16, 1996, respondent pled guilty to the misdemeanor of
6 having an open container of beer or intoxicating liquor in a motor vehicle.
7 By April 17, 1996, respondent had not yet participated in the Ohio
8 Lawyers's Assistance Program, and on June 17, 1996, a probable cause
9 panel of the board certified a formal complaint filed by relator alleging that
10 respondent violated five Disciplinary Rules and one Rule for the
11 Governance of the Bar. Based on these facts relator filed an "Amended
12 Petition for Revocation of Probation" on June 25, 1996. On October 10,
13 1996, pursuant to Gov.Bar R.V(9)(I), this court revoked respondent's
14 probation and reinstated his original one-year suspension pending the
15 issuance of a final order.
16
A panel of the board held a hearing on this matter on July 19, 1996.
17 Witnesses included Carl Jones, one of respondent's monitoring attorneys,
18 William Haase, Director of OLAP, Dr. Richard O. Pelham, Clinical Director

2

1 of OLAP, Jeanie Phillips, respondent's former wife, and respondent. On the
2 basis of the evidence, the panel found that respondent had not entered into
3 a contract with the OLAP, and by his own admission had used alcohol
4 during his period of probation. The panel also found that on June 17, 1996,
5 a certified disciplinary complaint was filed against the respondent.
6
The panel recommended that respondent's two-year probation be
7 revoked and that the order of December 7, 1994 suspending respondent for
8 one year be reinstated with no probation.
9
_______________________________________
10
Geoffrey Stern, Disciplinary Counsel, and Sally Ann Steuck, Assistant
11 Disciplinary Counsel for relator.
12
Thomas Ewing Phillips, pro se.
13
_______________________________________
14 Per
Curiam. We adopt the findings and recommendations of the
15 panel and hereby suspend respondent from the practice of law in Ohio for a
16 period of one year from the date of this order. Costs of these proceedings
17 taxed to respondent.
18

Judgment accordingly.

3