.]
Attorneys at law—Misconduct—Six-month suspension stayed on conditions—
Conviction in Texas for possession of a controlled substance.
(No. 96-986—Submitted June 25, 1996—Decided October 2, 1996.)
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 95-67.
__________________
{¶ 1} On August 7, 1995, the Office of Disciplinary Counsel, relator, filed
a complaint charging Shawn Allen Thomas of Springfield, Ohio, Attorney
Registration No. 0040462,
respondent, with violations of DR 1-102(A)(3)
(engaging in illegal conduct involving moral turpitude) and 1-102 (A)(6) (engaging
in conduct adverse to his fitness to practice law) based on respondent’s having been
found to possess a controlled substance when being stopped by police for speeding
while he was on vacation in Texas. His plea agreement resulted in a short jail term,
a fine, and probation.
{¶ 2} Respondent filed an answer denying that his actions constituted illegal
conduct involving moral turpitude. A hearing was held before a panel of the Board
of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court (“board”)
on February 9, 1996, at which the parties stipulated and the respondent testified to
the following essential facts.
{¶ 3} Respondent was arrested, charged, and pled guilty to possession of a
controlled substance as stated in the complaint. Respondent paid a $5,000 fine,
served a portion of a thirty-day jail sentence, and was placed on probation by the
Texas court. When respondent returned to Ohio he reported himself to the Office
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
of Disciplinary Counsel and began participation in AL-ANON through the Ohio
Lawyers Assistance Program, Inc.
{¶ 4} The panel concluded that because respondent’s drug conviction was
not clearly a per se violation of DR 1-102(A)(3), and because the charged offenses
occurred outside the community where respondent practiced law, respondent had
not engaged in conduct involving moral turpitude.
{¶ 5} Respondent in mitigation presented evidence that he was a hardworking attorney, that the Texas matter was an isolated incident, and that he had no
history of mental illness, substance abuse, or dependence problems. Testimony and
letters were also received at the hearing with respect to respondent’s good character
and honesty.
{¶ 6} The panel recommended that respondent be suspended from the
practice of law for one year, with the suspension stayed on condition that for two
years respondent continue his participation with OLAP, and that he remain drug
and alcohol free, be subject to urine analysis, and continue his attendance at either
AA, Narcotics Anonymous, or AL-ANON meetings. The board reviewed the
findings of the panel and recommended that the respondent be suspended from the
practice of law for six months, with the suspension stayed upon conditions of
treatment consistent with the panel’s recommendation.
__________________
Geoffrey Stern, Disciplinary Counsel, and Stacy M. Solochek, Assistant
Disciplinary Counsel, for relator.
Charles W. Kettlewell for respondent.
__________________
Per Curiam.
{¶ 7} Based on upon our review of the record, the court adopts the findings,
conclusion, and recommendation of the board. Respondent is hereby suspended
from the practice of law for six months, with the suspension stayed on condition
2
January Term, 1996
that for two years from the date of the announcement of this order respondent
continue his participation with OLAP and remain drug and alcohol free, be subject
to random urine analysis, and continue his attendance at either AA, Narcotics
Anonymous, or AL-ANON meetings. Costs taxed to respondent.
Judgment accordingly.
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and
STRATTON, JJ., concur.
__________________
3
