The opinion
OPINIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
The full texts of the opinions of the Supreme Court of Ohio
are being transmitted electronically beginning May 27, 1992,
pursuant to a pilot project implemented by Chief Justice Thomas J.
Moyer.
Please call any errors to the attention of the Reporter's
Office of the Supreme Court of Ohio. Attention: Walter S.
Kobalka, Reporter, or Deborah J. Barrett, Administrative
Assistant. Tel.: (614) 466-4961; in Ohio 1-800-826-9010. Your
comments on this pilot project are also welcome.
NOTE: Corrections may be made by the Supreme Court to the
full texts of the opinions after they have been released
electronically to the public. The reader is therefore advised to
check the bound volumes of Ohio St.3d published by West Publishing
Company for the final versions of these opinions. The advance
sheets to Ohio St.3d will also contain the volume and page numbers
where the opinions will be found in the bound volumes of the Ohio
Official Reports.
Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Carter.
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Carter (1994), Ohio St.3d .]
Attorneys at law -- Misconduct -- Suspended two-year suspension and
attorney placed on probation for two years with conditions --
Engaging in illegal conduct involving moral turpitude --
Engaging in conduct that adversely reflects on fitness to
practice law -- Enlisting aid of a stranger to purchase crack
cocaine for personal use.
(No. 93-2177 -- Submitted January 26, 1994 -- Decided March
30, 1994.)
On Certified Report by the Board of Commissioners on
Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 92-52.
In a complaint filed October 19, 1992, respondent, Fred
Carter, Jr. of Columbus, Ohio, Attorney Registration No. 0034366,
was charged by relator, Office of Disciplinary Counsel, with
violations of DR 1-102(A)(3) (engaging in illegal conduct involving
moral turpitude) and 1-102(A)(6) (engaging in conduct that
adversely reflects on one's fitness to practice law).
On June 25, 1993, a panel of the Board of Commissioners on
Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court ("board") conducted
a hearing on the complaint at which the parties presented
stipulations of fact and testimony in mitigation.
The record shows that respondent, on April 11, 1992, enlisted
the aid of a stranger to purchase crack cocaine for respondent's
use. Shortly after the purchase was made, the police stopped
respondent's auto and seized the cocaine, which respondent had
thrown from the car window. The Franklin County Grand Jury
returned an indictment against respondent for drug abuse in
violation of R.C. 2925.11, a felony of the fourth degree.
The Franklin County Court of Common Pleas stayed criminal
proceedings and on July 17, 1992 granted respondent's request for
treatment in lieu of conviction, pursuant to R.C. 2951.041.
Respondent is currently enrolled in a two-year treatment
intervention program for alcohol and substance abuse, and attends
weekly meetings of Alcoholics Anonymous.
In mitigation, several character witnesses testified that
respondent was a loyal, responsible, trustworthy and competent
individual and would recommend him to others as an attorney or
employee. Further, respondent's Alcoholics Anonymous sponsor
testified that respondent has a positive attitude toward overcoming
his chemical dependency and has a high probability of recovery.
The panel found that respondent had violated DR 1-102(A)(3)
and 1-102(A)(6), and recommended that he be suspended from the
practice of law for a period a two years. The panel further
recommended that the sanction be suspended and that respondent be
placed on probation, to be monitored by the Columbus Bar
Association, for two years on the following conditions: During the
period of probation respondent (1) remain alcohol and drug free,
(2) submit to random testing for substance and alcohol abuse, and
(3) continue his attendance and work in Alcoholics Anonymous. The
board adopted the findings of fact, conclusions of law, and
recommendation of the panel.
Geoffrey Stern, Disciplinary Counsel, and Dianna L. Chesley,
Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator.
Crabbe, Brown, Jones, Potts & Schmidt and Larry H. James, for
respondent.
Per Curiam. We agree that respondent committed the
disciplinary violations found by the board. We also agree with the
board's recommendation. Accordingly, respondent is hereby
suspended from the practice of law in Ohio for a period of two
years. The sanction is suspended and respondent is placed on
probation for two years, under the conditions recommended by the
board. If respondent violates any of those conditions during the
probationary period, the two-year term of suspension will be
automatically imposed. Costs taxed to respondent.
Judgment accordingly.
Moyer, C.J., A.W. Sweeney, Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney and
Pfeifer, JJ., concur.
Wright, J., not participating.