Disciplinary Counsel v. Jones - 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

[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Jones, 90 Ohio St.3d 244, 2000-Ohio-29.]

OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. JONES.
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Jones (2000), 90 Ohio St.3d 244.]
Attorneys at law -- Reinstatement to the practice of law.
(No. DD 87-33 -- Submitted July 6, 2000 -- Decided October 25, 2000.)
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 4-87-B.

In 1988 we indefinitely suspended respondent, Terrence Conrad Jones of
Toledo, Ohio, Attorney Registration No. 0042991, from the practice of law in
Ohio based on several Disciplinary Rule violations, including his conviction on
two counts of drug abuse. Disciplinary Counsel v. Jones (1988), 38 Ohio St.3d
338, 528 N.E.2d 190.

On February 18, 1999, respondent filed for reinstatement, alleging that he
had remained drug-free for the past nineteen months, that he had complied with
the continuing legal education requirements of Gov.Bar R. X(3)(F), and that he
was a proper person to be readmitted to the practice of law. The matter was heard
by a panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the
Supreme Court.

The panel found that respondent was an admitted drug addict who had
used cocaine from 1987 through 1997, but acknowledged respondent's claim that
he had been "clean and sober" for the past two years. However, it found that
respondent "did not exhibit a humble or remorse [sic] attitude in his demeanor."
The panel concluded that since his indefinite suspension in 1988, respondent had
not shown that "he possesses all of the mental, educational, and moral
qualifications that were required of an applicant for admission to the practice of
law in Ohio at the time of his original admission." The panel therefore

recommended that respondent's request for reinstatement be denied. The board
adopted the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the panel.
__________________
Jonathan
Coughlan,
Disciplinary Counsel, and Kevin L. Williams,
Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator.
Britz
&
Zemmelman
and Harland M. Britz, for respondent.
__________________
Per
Curiam. Respondent has been suspended from the practice of law
since 1985, including an automatic indefinite suspension based on a criminal
conviction. Although the record at the panel hearing shows that on occasion
respondent used drugs after his suspension, it also shows that he has been free
from drug use for the past two years. Respondent presented exhibits to support
his contention that he was a talented and successful lawyer prior to 1987 and that
he has completed the requisite number of hours of continuing legal education for
his reinstatement. Respondent also stated that he intended to resume AA
meetings, which he had discontinued approximately eleven weeks before the
panel hearing.

Having reviewed the record, we find that it has now been over fifteen
years since respondent committed the acts for which he was suspended, that
respondent is more mature, that he recognizes his problem, and that he is likely to
avoid relapses in the future. We therefore conclude that the respondent ought to
be and he hereby is reinstated to the practice of law in Ohio. Costs are taxed to
respondent.
Judgment accordingly.

DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY and LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur.

MOYER, C.J., and COOK, J., concur in part and dissent in part.

PFEIFER, J., dissents.
__________________

2

COOK, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part. The majority
concedes that "the record at the panel hearing shows that on occasion respondent
used drugs after his suspension," yet finds that "it has now been over fifteen years
since respondent committed the acts for which he was suspended." Because
respondent's drug use was the basis for his suspension, Disciplinary Counsel v.
Jones (1988), 38 Ohio St.3d 338, 528 N.E.2d 190, and because respondent
admitted to a relapse and misdemeanor conviction for possession of drug
paraphernalia in 1997, I find the majority's reasoning unpersuasive.

Due to respondent's recent efforts at rehabilitation, negative drug screens,
and compliance with this court's legal education requirements, I would reinstate
respondent and subject his first two years of reinstatement to conditions of
probation. During that probationary period, I would require that respondent
attend the AA meetings that he discontinued prior to the panel hearing. I would
also require that respondent enter into a contract with the Ohio Lawyers
Assistance Program for the term of probation, that he be subject to random
urinalysis, and that he be placed under the supervision of a monitor other than his
employer. See Disciplinary Counsel v. Bussinger (1994), 71 Ohio St.3d 1210,
643 N.E.2d 137. Following the two years, respondent could apply for termination
of probation in accordance with Gov.Bar R. V(9)(D). Violation of any condition
of probation could result in revocation of probation and reinstatement of
respondent's suspension. Gov.Bar R. V(9)(E).

MOYER, C.J., concurs in the foregoing opinion.

3