Opinion
No. 83-44
Decided May 23, 1984.
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Indefinite suspension — Drug and alcohol abuse.
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Bar.
This is a disciplinary matter in which the complaint against respondent, Bernard Gross, was submitted to the hearing panel, the respondent not being present. The complaint alleged violations of DR 1-102(A)(6), in that respondent engaged in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law.
The evidence presented established that on August 27, 1980 respondent was convicted of attempted drug abuse, R.C. 2923.02 as it relates to R.C. 2925.11, a misdemeanor of the first degree, in connection with possession of a controlled substance, to wit: methaqualone, commonly known as quaalude. On April 12, 1982 respondent was convicted of possession of marijuana in violation of Section 624.03(a), New Albany Code, a minor misdemeanor. Also, on that date, respondent was convicted of driving under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs, in violation of Section 434.01, New Albany Code. Additionally, a charge of driving while under suspension was dropped in exchange for a plea.
As to each of the above counts, respondent was originally arrested for a felony possession of a narcotic drug but due to a plea was convicted of the minor misdemeanor.
A hearing was set for the appearance of the respondent but the day prior to the hearing he called and indicated that he could not be present because of illness in the family. Notice of the rescheduled hearing was sent to respondent's last known address, but was returned unclaimed. Notice was then duly served according to the rules upon the Clerk of the Supreme Court. Respondent failed to notify the court of his new address, knowing that this hearing was pending. Notice of the rescheduled hearing date was served upon respondent's father. Respondent's whereabouts are unknown.
Respondent was admitted to the practice of law in the state of Ohio on November 4, 1977, and he had been continuously employed by the Industrial Commission of Ohio until sometime after the complaints were filed. In his answer, respondent admitted to suffering "a potentially serious alcohol/drug problem."
Based upon the evidence adduced at the hearing, the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline found that respondent's conduct was in violation of DR 1-102(A) on both counts. The Office of Disciplinary Counsel recommended a public reprimand be imposed upon respondent based on precedent of the board in matters involving misdemeanor convictions not involving moral turpitude. The board, in contrast, found that under the totality of the circumstances, a public reprimand would be insufficient, and recommended that respondent be indefinitely suspended from the practice of law.
Mr. Angelo J. Gagliardo, disciplinary counsel, and Carl J. Corletzi, for relator.
Upon a review of the record, we find that respondent has violated DR 1-102(A)(6) as to both counts. Further, after an analysis of the facts presented, particularly those that would show that respondent is suffering from a serious alcohol/drug problem and is not capable of meeting his personal responsibilities, much less capable of handling legal matters entrusted to him, we conclude that a period of rehabilitation is required for this respondent to be able to present himself capable of practicing the profession of law.
Therefore, we adopt the recommendation of the board of commissioners and agree that a stronger sanction than public reprimand is needed.
It is the judgment of this court that respondent, Bernard Gross, be indefinitely suspended from the practice of law.
Judgment accordingly.
CELEBREZZE, C.J., W. BROWN, SWEENEY, LOCHER, HOLMES, C. BROWN and J.P. CELEBREZZE, JJ., concur.