Akron Bar Assn. v. Gatskie - 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 Akron Bar Assn. v. Gatskie, 105 Ohio St.3d 327, 2005-Ohio-1828.]

AKRON BAR ASSOCIATION v. GATSKIE.
[Cite as Akron Bar Assn. v. Gatskie,
105 Ohio St.3d 327, 2005-Ohio-1828.]
Attorneys at law -- Misconduct -- Six-month suspension with entire six months
stayed on condition -- Engaging in conduct that adversely reflects on
attorney's fitness to practice law -- Attorney pleaded guilty to several
charges filed against him by his adult son.
(No. 2004-1807 -- Submitted January 12, 2005 -- Decided May 4, 2005.)
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 03-102.
_______________________

Per Curiam.
{¶1} Respondent, James M. Gatskie Sr., of Akron, Ohio, Attorney
Registration No. 0024727, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1974.
On December 8, 2003, relator, Akron Bar Association, charged respondent with
having violated the Code of Professional Responsibility. A panel of the Board of
Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline heard the cause and, based on
stipulations and other evidence, made findings of misconduct and a
recommendation, all of which the board adopted.
Misconduct
{¶2} Respondent, a former police officer, practiced law for 21 years as a
public defender and is now in private practice. On October 30, 2002, after his
adult son complained to authorities about threatening remarks that respondent had
allegedly made, respondent was arrested at his home. At the time of his arrest,
respondent had a large gun collection in his house and was also intoxicated.

SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
{¶3} Respondent subsequently pleaded guilty in Summit County
Common Pleas Court to violating R.C. 2919.25 (domestic violence), a fourth-
degree misdemeanor; R.C. 2923.13(A)(4) (possession of weapons while under a
disability, i.e., chronic alcoholism), a fifth-degree felony; R.C. 2903.211
(menacing by stalking), a fifth-degree felony; and R.C. 2921.04(B) (attempted
intimidation of a crime victim or witness), a misdemeanor. The weapons charge
to which respondent pleaded guilty apparently resulted from his having guns in
his home. Respondent assured the panel that the other charges against him did
not involve weapons.
{¶4} The incidents that led to respondent's arrest stemmed from a
volatile relationship between respondent and his son, with whom respondent no
longer has contact. At the panel hearing, respondent testified that he had initially
been told that a series of misdemeanor charges had been brought against him,
including a domestic-violence charge that mandated his arrest, and he had
arranged to sign the summons in lieu of arrest. According to respondent, his son
then embellished his story, and felony indictments were also handed down.
{¶5} For the domestic-violence conviction, respondent was sentenced to
a 30-day jail term, all of which was suspended. On February 28, 2003, the court
granted respondent's motion for treatment in lieu of conviction as to the other
offenses and ordered a stay in the criminal proceedings for a period not to exceed
three years.
{¶6} Thereafter, respondent successfully completed an inpatient
alcoholism-treatment program at Glenbeigh Hospital. On April 28, 2003,
respondent voluntarily entered into an agreement with the Ohio Lawyers
Assistance Program ("OLAP") to help him sustain his sobriety. Respondent has
since complied with all the terms of the Summit County Common Pleas Court
order and his OLAP contract.
2

January Term, 2005
{¶7} Based on the foregoing facts, the parties stipulated and the board
found that respondent had violated DR 1-102(A)(6), which prohibits a lawyer
from engaging in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law.
Sanction
{¶8} In recommending a sanction for this misconduct, the board
considered the aggravating and mitigating factors listed in Section 10 of the Rules
and Regulations Governing Procedure on Complaints and Hearings Before the
Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline ("BCGD Proc.Reg.").
The board found that respondent had no prior disciplinary offenses and had not
acted out of dishonesty or selfishness. See BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(a) and (b).
The board found that there had not been a pattern of misconduct, that respondent
had been charged with violating only one Disciplinary Rule, that respondent had
cooperated in the disciplinary process, and that he had forthrightly acknowledged
the wrongfulness of his conduct. See BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(d) and
10(B)(1)(c), (d), and (g). In addition, the board found that there was no restitution
to be made and that respondent had a good reputation in his community. BCGD
Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(c) and (e). A letter from the judge who presided over his
criminal case notes that respondent "continues to represent his clients with
diligence without any complaints from the bench."
{¶9} The Summit County Common Pleas Court determined that
respondent's alcohol abuse contributed to his criminal activity, and the board
agreed with that determination. See BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(g). The board
also considered the price respondent had already paid for his misconduct. BCGD
Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(f). Respondent spent 93 days in jail as a result of the charges
against him. His gun collection, which he estimated to be worth $7,500, was
confiscated by the state. Respondent's care at Glenbeigh Hospital, a residential
treatment facility, cost him $6,200.
3

SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
{¶10} Beyond this, respondent submitted that he has been sober since
November 2002 and that he had remarried within the last few years. He
explained that his new wife strongly supports his recovery and also helps him
manage the home office from which he now practices. Moreover, in addition to
treatment for his alcoholism, respondent also completed anger-management and
family counseling. His probation officer related that respondent has "made
significant changes in his lifestyle and his way of thinking."
{¶11} As a sanction for his misconduct, respondent suggests a one-year
suspension from the practice of law, all stayed. The panel noted that respondent
had spent 93 days in jail, forfeited $7,500 worth of property, paid $6,200 for
treatment, and is in full compliance with his OLAP agreement and the Summit
County Common Pleas Court order. In view of these facts, the panel
recommended a six-month suspension, with the entire suspension stayed on the
condition that respondent continue to comply with his OLAP contract and the
terms set forth in the Summit County court order. The board adopted the panel's
findings and recommendation.
{¶12} Upon review, we agree that respondent violated DR 1-102(A)(6)
and that the sanction recommended by the board is appropriate. Accordingly,
respondent is hereby suspended from the practice of law in Ohio for six months;
however, the entire six-month suspension is stayed on the condition that
respondent continue to comply with his OLAP contract and the Summit County
Common Pleas Court order. If respondent fails to comply with either, the stay
shall be lifted and respondent shall serve the entire six-month suspension. Costs
are taxed to respondent.
Judgment accordingly.

RESNICK, PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O'DONNELL and LANZINGER,
JJ., concur.

MOYER, C.J., and O'CONNOR, J., dissent.
4

January Term, 2005
__________________

MOYER, C.J., dissenting.
{¶13} I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion with respect to the
sanction imposed on respondent.
{¶14} The parties had stipulated to a one-year suspension from the
practice of law, all stayed. However, the majority elects to impose a less severe
sanction, in part because respondent's gun collection was forfeited to the state and
because respondent paid $6,200 to participate in an alcoholism-treatment
program. I do not believe that these facts warrant imposition of a sanction that is
less severe than the one agreed to by the parties.
{¶15} For this reason, and because I believe the sanction to which the
parties stipulated was appropriate given respondent's misconduct, I would
suspend respondent from the practice of law for one year, stayed on the conditions
imposed by the majority.
O'CONNOR, J., concurs in the foregoing dissenting opinion.
__________________

Thomas B. Squires, Kevin Sanislo, and John Martin, for relator.

George M. Miller, for respondent.
______________________
5