Disciplinary Counsel v. Grossman
143 Ohio St. 3d 302
| Ohio | 2015Background
- Jason Courtland Grossman, admitted in 2009, was suspended in 2013 for failing to register and then interim-suspended in 2014 after a felony conviction.
- In federal court Grossman pleaded guilty to receipt of visual depictions of child pornography; sentenced to 60 months imprisonment, five years supervised release, restitution, and other special conditions.
- His supervision conditions include sex-offender registration, sex-offender and mental-health counseling, prohibition on possessing sexually explicit material or depictions of minors, computer monitoring, and compliance with registration laws.
- Grossman admitted additional misconduct: online communications with an undercover officer posing as the father of an 11-year-old and traveling to meet the purported minor; he acknowledged a dishonest motive and an ongoing course of conduct.
- Disciplinary counsel filed a complaint; Grossman admitted the conviction and did not contest misconduct. The parties waived a hearing, stipulated facts, and jointly recommended an indefinite suspension with a bar on petitioning for reinstatement until after completion of criminal probation.
- The Board adopted the stipulations and recommended indefinite suspension; the Supreme Court adopted the board’s report and indefinitely suspended Grossman, barring reinstatement until his criminal probation ends. Costs taxed to Grossman.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Grossman’s felony conviction and related conduct violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(h) (fitness to practice) | Disciplinary counsel: conviction and admitted conduct adversely reflect on fitness and warrant discipline | Grossman: admitted conviction and did not contest misconduct (no substantive defense) | Court found violation of Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(h) and adopted board’s findings |
| Appropriate sanction for sexual/offense-related misconduct by an attorney | Disciplinary counsel: indefinite suspension (protect public, deter, preserve trust); bar reinstatement until criminal probation ends | Grossman (by stipulation): agreed to indefinite suspension and the proposed reinstatement condition | Court imposed an indefinite suspension and barred petitioning for reinstatement until completion of criminal probation |
| Consideration of aggravating and mitigating factors | Aggravating: targeted vulnerable victims, dishonest motive, ongoing conduct, prior registration suspension; Mitigating: full disclosure/cooperation, other penalties imposed | Grossman stipulated mitigating factors but prior registration suspension raised as aggravating | Court considered factors and agreed indefinite suspension appropriate |
| Whether temporary/interim suspensions affect final sanction timing | Disciplinary counsel: reinstatement should be delayed until criminal probation finished | Grossman: agreed to delay reinstatement | Court adopted the condition delaying any reinstatement petition until probation completion |
Key Cases Cited
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Goldblatt, 118 Ohio St.3d 310, 888 N.E.2d 1091 (indefinite suspension appropriate where attorney attempted to arrange sexual encounter with a minor during undercover FBI conversations)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Ridenbaugh, 122 Ohio St.3d 583, 913 N.E.2d 443 (indefinite suspension where attorney engaged in voyeurism and possessed child pornography)
- Columbus Bar Assn. v. Linnen, 111 Ohio St.3d 507, 857 N.E.2d 539 (indefinite suspension where attorney indecently exposed himself and photographed reactions of multiple women)