# Disciplinary Counsel v. Jackson

> Ohio Supreme Court · July 7, 1999 · 86 Ohio St. 3d 104

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11151530

## Case

- **Court:** Ohio Supreme Court
- **Decided:** July 7, 1999
- **Citations:** 86 Ohio St. 3d 104; 1999 Ohio 87
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Cited by:** 3 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11151530

## Opinion text

[This opinion has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 86 Ohio St.3d 104.]

OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. JACKSON.
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Jackson, 1999-Ohio-87.]
Attorneys at law—Misconduct—Indefinite suspension—While under order of
interim suspension, appearing as an attorney on behalf of a party in a
contested divorce.
(No. 97-1316—Submitted April 14, 1999—Decided July 7, 1999.)
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 95-25.
__________________
{¶ 1} Respondent, Jonathan Michael Jackson of Columbus, Ohio, Attorney
Registration No. 0038349, was licensed to practice both in Ohio and in Hawaii. In
December 1992, the Supreme Court of Hawaii suspended him from the practice of
law in that state for two years and ordered that he make restitution to various clients.
In June 1993, under the reciprocal suspension provisions of Gov.Bar R. V(11)(F),
we suspended respondent from the practice of law in Ohio for the duration of his
Hawaii suspension and conditioned his reinstatement in Ohio on evidence of the
full restitution ordered by the Supreme Court of Hawaii. Disciplinary Counsel v.
Jackson (1993), 66 Ohio St.3d 338, 612 N.E.2d 1225.
{¶ 2} From August through December 1993, while under our order of
interim suspension, respondent appeared as an attorney on behalf of a party in a
contested divorce in Pike County, Ohio. In February 1995, relator, Office of
Disciplinary Counsel, filed a complaint charging that this conduct of respondent
violated several Disciplinary Rules. Respondent filed an answer denying all of the
operative facts. After the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline
of the Supreme Court (“board”) was unable to serve notice of a hearing on the
respondent, it granted the relator’s motion for a default judgment. For procedural
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

reasons, we declined to adopt the findings, conclusion, and recommendation of the
board, and remanded the matter for further proceedings. Disciplinary Counsel v.
Jackson (1998), 81 Ohio St.3d 308, 691 N.E.2d 262.
{¶ 3} On remand, the parties waived a hearing before a panel of the board
and stipulated that respondent was suspended from the practice of law both in
Hawaii and Ohio; that he represented a party in a contested divorce in Pike County
during the period of his Ohio suspension; and that this conduct violated DR 3-
101(B) (practicing law in a jurisdiction where to do so would be a violation of the
regulations of the profession in that jurisdiction), and Gov.Bar R. V(8)(E) (failure
to perform the duties of a suspended attorney), and VI(6)(B) (disobedience of an
order of suspension).
{¶ 4} After finding the facts as stipulated, the panel concluded that
respondent had violated the rules as stipulated and recommended that respondent
be indefinitely suspended from the practice of law in Ohio. The board adopted the
findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the panel.
__________________
Jonathan E. Coughlan, Disciplinary Counsel, and Dianna M. Anelli,
Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator.
Jonathan Michael Jackson, pro se.
__________________
Per Curiam.
{¶ 5} We adopt the findings of the board. Because the parties stipulated to
the violations, we also adopt the conclusion of the board that respondent violated
DR 3-101(B) and Gov.Bar R. V(8)(E) and VI(6)(B), despite the fact that respondent
was not charged with the violation of these rules in the disciplinary complaint with
respect to his Pike County representation. We deem that respondent’s review of
and consent to the stipulated facts and the stipulated violations, and his agreed
waiver of a hearing, satisfied the due process requirements of In re Ruffalo (1968),

2
January Term, 1999

390 U.S. 544, 550-551, 88 S.Ct. 1222, 1226, 20 L.Ed.2d 117, 122-123, as to these
findings and conclusions. We also adopt the recommendation of the board.
Respondent is hereby indefinitely suspended from the practice of law in Ohio.
Costs are taxed to respondent.
Judgment accordingly.
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER and COOK, JJ.,
concur.
LUNDBERG STRATTON, J., dissents.
__________________
LUNDBERG STRATTON, J., dissenting.
{¶ 6} I dissent and would suspend respondent for one year.
__________________

3

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11151530. Public record. Not legal advice.