Disciplinary Counsel v. Phillips

[This opinion has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 

.]




                  OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. PHILLIPS.
             [Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Phillips, 

.]
Attorneys at law—Misconduct—One-year suspension reinstated—Failure to
        comply with conditions of probation of previous disciplinary proceeding.
      (No. 94-1810—Submitted January 22, 1997—Decided April 30, 1997.)
    ON CERTIFIED REPORT of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and
                     Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 93-86.
                                  __________________
        {¶ 1} On December 7, 1994, we suspended respondent, Thomas Ewing
Phillips of Chillicothe, Ohio, Attorney 

 from the practice
of law for one year, with that one year stayed, and we placed respondent on
probation for two years on the following conditions: (a) that an attorney appointed
by Disciplinary Counsel, relator, monitor respondent’s law office and practice and
management for these two years, (b) that respondent attend twelve hours of
continuing legal education in law office management in addition to the twenty-four
hours of CLE he is required to complete by December 31, 1996, (c) that respondent
enter into a contract with the Ohio Lawyers Assistance Program (“OLAP”) and
abide by its terms for a minimum of the next two years, and (d) that no disciplinary
complaints be certified to the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and
Discipline (“board”) by a probable cause panel within the next two years.
Disciplinary Counsel v. Phillips (1994), 71 Ohio St.3d. 98, 

.
        {¶ 2} On February 16, 1996, respondent pled guilty to the misdemeanor of
having an open container of beer or intoxicating liquor in a motor vehicle. By April
17, 1996, respondent had not yet participated in the Ohio Lawyers’s Assistance
Program, and on June 17, 1996, a probable cause panel of the board certified a
formal complaint filed by relator alleging that respondent violated five Disciplinary
                                SUPREME COURT OF OHIO




Rules and one Rule for the Governance of the Bar. Based on these facts relator filed
an “Amended Petition for Revocation of Probation” on June 25, 1996. On October
10, 1996, pursuant to Gov.Bar R.V(9)(I), this court revoked respondent’s probation
and reinstated his original one-year suspension pending the issuance of a final
order.
         {¶ 3} A panel of the board held a hearing on this matter on July 19, 1996.
Witnesses included Carl Jones, one of respondent’s monitoring attorneys, William
Haase, Director of OLAP, Dr. Richard O. Pelham, Clinical Director of OLAP,
Jeanie Phillips, respondent’s former wife, and respondent. On the basis of the
evidence, the panel found that respondent had not entered into a contract with the
OLAP, and by his own admission had used alcohol during his period of probation.
The panel also found that on June 17, 1996, a certified disciplinary complaint was
filed against the respondent.
         {¶ 4} The panel recommended that respondent’s two-year probation be
revoked and that the order of December 7, 1994 suspending respondent for one year
be reinstated with no probation.
                                 __________________
         Geoffrey Stern, Disciplinary Counsel, and Sally Ann Steuck, Assistant
Disciplinary Counsel for relator.
         Thomas Ewing Phillips, pro se.
                                 __________________
         Per Curiam.
         {¶ 5} We adopt the findings and recommendations of the panel and hereby
suspend respondent from the practice of law in Ohio for a period of one year from
the date of this order. Costs of these proceedings taxed to respondent.
                                                            Judgment accordingly.
         MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur.



                                          2
January Term, 1997




__________________




        3