Disciplinary Counsel v. Rolla - 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. Rolla, 95 Ohio St.3d 27, 2002-Ohio-1366.]

OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. ROLLA.
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Rolla (2002), 95 Ohio St.3d 27.]
Attorneys at law -- Misconduct -- Indefinite suspension -- Convictions for
obstructing justice, forgery, tampering with records, tampering with
evidence, and dereliction of duty.
(No. 01-1860 -- Submitted November 28, 2001 -- Decided March 27, 2002.)
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 01-45.
__________________

Per Curiam. On April 9, 2001, relator, Office of Disciplinary Counsel,
filed a complaint charging respondent, Donald D. Rolla of South Euclid, Ohio,
Attorney Registration No. 0029833, with violations of DR 1-102(A)(3) (engaging
in illegal conduct involving moral turpitude), 1-102(A)(4) (engaging in conduct
involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation), and 1-102(A)(6)
(engaging in conduct adversely reflecting on lawyer's fitness to practice law).
Respondent failed to answer or otherwise responsively plead to the complaint, and
relator moved for a default judgment.

Respondent, formerly an assistant prosecuting attorney for Cuyahoga
County, pled guilty, on November 6, 2000, to two counts of obstructing justice,
one count of forgery, two counts of tampering with records, one count of
tampering with evidence, and one count of dereliction of duty. Dereliction of
duty is a misdemeanor; the remaining offenses are felonies. On December 20,
2000, respondent was sentenced to three years of community control, which
included serving six months of house arrest, undergoing an evaluation for mental-
health treatment, taking ordered medication, receiving periodic testing, submitting
to supervision by the intensive special probation unit, and being evaluated for

SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
alcohol usage. Respondent was also fined $2,500 and assessed court costs and a
supervision fee. As a result of his convictions, this court suspended respondent
from the practice of law for an interim period pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(5)(A)(4).
In re Rolla (2001), 91 Ohio St.3d 1451, 742 N.E.2d 148.

In mitigation, respondent has no prior disciplinary record, and the
sentencing judge's conditions suggest that relator suffers from a mental-health
impairment and substance abuse.

The Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the
Supreme Court referred this case to a master commissioner. He recommended
that we find that respondent violated the previously mentioned Disciplinary
Rules. The master commissioner, agreeing with relator, recommended that we
indefinitely suspend respondent from the practice of law. The board adopted the
findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the master commissioner.

After reviewing the record, we adopt the findings, conclusions, and
recommendation of the board. Accordingly, we hereby indefinitely suspend
respondent from the practice of law in Ohio. Costs are taxed to respondent.
Judgment accordingly.

MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur.
__________________

Jonathan E. Coughlan, Disciplinary Counsel, and Stacy Solochek
Beckman, Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator.
__________________

2