Opinion
No. 92-1709
Submitted October 13, 1992 —
Decided December 9, 1992.
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 92-18.
In a complaint filed February 26, 1992, relator, Office of Disciplinary Counsel, charged that respondent, Terri L. Nass, had been convicted of petty theft, a misdemeanor of the first degree, and had thereby violated DR 1-102(A)(3) (illegal conduct involving moral turpitude) and 1-102(A)(4) (conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation). Because respondent committed this offense while employed as an assistant prosecuting attorney in Portage County, Ohio, relator further charged a violation of DR 1-102(A)(5) (conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice). Respondent stipulated to all the charges in the complaint.
A panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court heard the matter on May 22, 1992. The record establishes that on March 9, 1991, respondent placed over $400 of merchandise from a department store in a bag containing other purchases. She was detained by security personnel before leaving the store and subsequently charged with felony theft. Respondent pleaded not guilty to the felony, but pleaded guilty to an amended charge of petty theft. She was fined $1,000, $580 of which was suspended, and sentenced to one-hundred-eighty days' imprisonment, all of which was suspended on the condition that she obey all laws for one year and complete one hundred hours of community service.
The panel found that respondent had violated the cited Disciplinary Rules. Before recommending a sanction, the panel considered that respondent had paid her fine and completed her community service; that she had graduated from law school in 1989 and had been an excellent student; that she had been a valued employee of the Portage County Prosecutor's Office, but had been discharged in the wake of her conviction; and that she had no previous criminal record other than minor traffic citations. The panel also considered that respondent had independently sought psychological evaluation and treatment for her behavior.
The panel recommended that respondent be publicly reprimanded because it was convinced that respondent would never repeat her misconduct. The board adopted the panel's findings, but rejected its recommendation. The board instead recommended a one-year suspension from the practice of law, with that sanction being suspended on the condition that respondent commit no other violations of DR 1-102(A)(3).
J. Warren Bettis, Disciplinary Counsel, and Harald F. Craig III, for relator.
Kerry M. O'Brien, for respondent.
We concur in the board's findings and its recommendation. Respondent is, therefore, ordered suspended from the practice of law in Ohio for a period of one year, but we suspend imposition of this sanction on the condition stated by the board. Costs taxed to respondent.
Judgment accordingly.
MOYER, C.J., SWEENEY, HOLMES, DOUGLAS, WRIGHT, H. BROWN and RESNICK, JJ., concur.