Disciplinary Counsel v. Rolla

[This decision has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 

.]




                   OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. ROLLA.
             [Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Rolla, 

.]
Attorneys     at     law—Misconduct—Indefinite            suspension—Convictions   for
        obstructing justice, forgery, tampering with records, tampering with
        evidence, and dereliction of duty.
    (No. 01-1860—Submitted November 28, 2001—Decided March 27, 2002.)
    ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and
                     Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 01-45.
                                  __________________
        Per Curiam.
        {¶ 1} On April 9, 2001, relator, Office of Disciplinary Counsel, filed a
complaint charging respondent, Donald D. Rolla of South Euclid, Ohio, Attorney

 with violations of 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 adversely reflecting on lawyer’s fitness to practice law). Respondent failed
to answer or otherwise responsively plead to the complaint, and relator moved for
a default judgment.
        {¶ 2} Respondent, formerly an assistant prosecuting attorney for Cuyahoga
County, pled guilty, on November 6, 2000, to two counts of obstructing justice, one
count of forgery, two counts of tampering with records, one count of tampering
with evidence, and one count of dereliction of duty. Dereliction of duty is a
misdemeanor; the remaining offenses are felonies.               On December 20, 2000,
respondent was sentenced to three years of community control, which included
serving six months of house arrest, undergoing an evaluation for mental-health
treatment, taking ordered medication, receiving periodic testing, submitting to
                             SUPREME COURT OF OHIO




supervision by the intensive special probation unit, and being evaluated for alcohol
usage.    Respondent was also fined $2,500 and assessed court costs and a
supervision fee. As a result of his convictions, this court suspended respondent
from the practice of law for an interim period pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(5)(A)(4).
In re Rolla (2001), 

, 

.
         {¶ 3} In mitigation, respondent has no prior disciplinary record, and the
sentencing judge’s conditions suggest that relator suffers from a mental-health
impairment and substance abuse.
         {¶ 4} The Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the
Supreme Court referred this case to a master commissioner. He recommended that
we find that respondent violated the previously mentioned Disciplinary Rules. The
master commissioner, agreeing with relator, recommended that we indefinitely
suspend respondent from the practice of law. The board adopted the findings,
conclusions, and recommendation of the master commissioner.
         {¶ 5} After reviewing the record, we adopt the findings, conclusions, and
recommendation of the board.       Accordingly, we hereby indefinitely suspend
respondent from the practice of law in Ohio. Costs are taxed to respondent.
                                                            Judgment accordingly.
         MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur.
                              __________________
         Jonathan E. Coughlan, Disciplinary Counsel, and Stacy Solochek Beckman,
Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator.
                              __________________




                                         2