Disciplinary Counsel v. Mitchell

[This opinion has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 

.]




                 OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. MITCHELL.
             [Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Mitchell, 

.]
Attorneys at law—Misconduct—Indefinite suspension—Conviction of conspiracy
          to manufacture marijuana.
    (No. 95-2531—Submitted January 24, 1996—Decided February 28, 1996.)
    ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and
                     Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 95-44.
                                  __________________
          {¶ 1} By a complaint filed on June 5, 1995, relator, Office of Disciplinary
Counsel, charged, inter alia, that respondent, Steven F. Mitchell of Cleveland,
Ohio, Attorney 

 had entered a plea of guilty to one
criminal count in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio,
Eastern Division, and that he had thereby violated DR 1-102(A)(3) (engaging in
illegal conduct involving moral turpitude), 1-102(A)(4) (engaging in conduct
involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation), and 1-102(A)(6)
(engaging in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law).
Respondent was served with the complaint, and filed an answer admitting most of
the allegations charged in the complaint, but also stating that he had not profited
from the business alleged in the complaint.
          {¶ 2} The matter was heard by a panel of the Board of Commissioners on
Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court (“board”) on November 21, 1995.
The parties presented a factual stipulation, which established that respondent
agreed to establish an indoor hydroponic marijuana cultivation operation with a
friend.    With respondent’s knowledge and assent, the individuals harvested,
processed, used, and distributed marijuana through the operation until early 1991,
when law enforcement officials seized 138 marijuana plants and equipment.
                                 SUPREME COURT OF OHIO




         {¶ 3} Supporting relator's complaint were certified copies of the criminal
information against respondent, the plea agreement between the parties, the
judgment entry of conviction against respondent (United States v. Steven Mitchell
[Nov. 17, 1994], United States District Court, Northern District of Ohio, Eastern
Division, case No. 1:93CR317, unreported) ordering him incarcerated for the
minimum sentence of forty-six months, the order correcting respondent’s sentence
and reducing his incarceration to a four-month term, and a certified copy of this
court's entry indefinitely suspending respondent following his conviction in case
No. 1:93CR317. The judgment entry reflects that respondent was convicted of the
following felony: one count of conspiracy to manufacture marijuana in violation of
Sections 846 and 841(b)(1)(B)(vii), Title 21, U.S. Code.1 Respondent is currently
participating in any early supervised release program for this crime.
         {¶ 4} Respondent presented evidence of his treatment for drug and alcohol
abuse.     Respondent also presented the affidavits of several friends and
acquaintances regarding his abilities to practice law and the dramatic change in
respondent following his treatment for drug and alcohol abuse.
         {¶ 5} Based on the foregoing, the panel found violations of DR 1-
102(A)(3), 1-102(A)(4), and 1-102(A)(6). It then recommended the sanction
recommended by relator, that respondent receive a two-year suspension, from the
time that he notified this court of his conviction (Dec. 13, 1993); that respondent
not be readmitted until he had successfully completed his federal probation; and
that respondent assume the costs of the proceedings and maintain his CLE
requirements. The board adopted the panel's findings and its recommendation.
                                   __________________




1. Respondent was indefinitely suspended from the practice of law in Ohio on April 5, 1995, for
matters related to his conviction in the United States District Court, Northern District of Ohio,
Eastern Division, case No. 1:93CR317 on November 17, 1994. (Supreme Court case No. 95-598.)




                                               2
                                January Term, 1996




       Geoffrey Stern, Disciplinary Counsel, and Stacy M. Solochek, Assistant
Disciplinary Counsel, for relator.
       Theodore F. Stebbins, for respondent.
                              __________________
       Per Curiam.
       {¶ 6} Having reviewed the record, we agree with the board's findings of
misconduct, but disagree with its recommended sanction. Accordingly, given the
gravity of respondent’s crime, respondent is hereby indefinitely suspended from the
practice of law in Ohio. Costs taxed to respondent.
                                                           Judgment accordingly.
       MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, WRIGHT, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER and
COOK, JJ., concur.
                              __________________




                                        3