Disciplinary Counsel v. Lawson, 130 Ohio St. 3d 184

Respondent Kenneth L. Lawson was admitted to practice in 1989 and previously suspended indefinitely in 2007 for multiple misconduct violations.
In August 2003, Lawson conspired with Dr. Walter Broadnax and George Beatty to illegally obtain Schedule II drugs by deceit, while Lawson acted as Broadnax’s attorney pro bono in exchange for prescriptions.
Between November 2004 and January 2007, Broadnax issued approximately 700–800 prescriptions for Lawson and Beatty, with Lawson assisting in schemes to avoid investigation by naming recipients and sometimes paying or providing services.
In September 2008, Lawson was federally indicted for conspiracy to obtain Schedule II drugs by deception; he pleaded guilty and was sentenced to 24 months in prison.
This court had entered an interim remedial suspension in July 2009; in 2010–2011 disciplinary proceedings ensued, with the Board recommending indefinite suspension and conditions, and Relator seeking permanent disbarment.
The court ultimately held that Lawson’s conduct, including deception, client harm, and a long-term criminal enterprise, warranted permanent disbarment, rejecting the board’s recommended indefinite suspension.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Lawson’s conduct violated ethical rules and warranted disbarment	Disciplinary Counsel: conduct violated multiple rules and justified permanent disbarment	Lawson: argued for indefinite suspension or dismissal	Disbarment affirmed; permanent disbarment warranted
Whether prior disciplinary proceedings barred consideration of current misconduct (res judicata)	Previous cases did not encompass the current three-and-a-half-year conspiracy and related felonies	Lawson argued current issues were part of prior discipline	Not res judicata; current misconduct and felony conviction properly considered
What aggravating and mitigating factors apply to Lawson’s case	AG factors present: prior discipline, dishonest motive, pattern, multiple offenses	Mitigating factors include cooperation, character, rehabilitation, chemical dependency	Aggravation outweighed mitigation; factors support disbarment
Appropriate sanction given the scope and nature of deceit and professional misconduct	Disbarment or similarly severe sanction due to pervasive deceit	Indefinite suspension with conditions would suffice	Permanent disbarment; indefinite suspension deemed insufficient to protect public
Impact of chemical dependency and related considerations on discipline	Dependency is a mitigating factor but does not excuse extensive fraud	Dependency partly caused behavior and should temper sanction	Mitigating factors do not override need for disbarment given harm and deceit

Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Lawson, 119 Ohio St.3d 58 (2008-Ohio-3340) (extensive misconduct and pattern justify severe discipline)
Farrell, 129 Ohio St.3d 223 (2011-Ohio-2879) (permanent disbarment for deceitful conduct and pattern, despite mitigation)
Deaton, 102 Ohio St.3d 19 (2004-Ohio-1587) (disbarment for dishonesty and deceit under persistent patterns)
Manogg, 74 Ohio St.3d 213 (1996-Ohio-214) (permanent disbarment for fraudulent conduct and deceit)
Kafantaris, 121 Ohio St.3d 387 (2009-Ohio-1389) (permanent disbarment for deceit and pattern of misconduct)
Lieberman, 163 Ohio St. 35 (1955-Ohio-) (principle that repeated offenses justify greater discipline)
Bein, 105 Ohio St.3d 62 (2004-Ohio-7012) (disbarment following felony convictions for criminal conduct harming profession)
Fatica, 28 Ohio St.2d 40 (1971-Ohio-) (trust in bar leaders must be maintained; bribe-related misconduct serious)
Neller, 98 Ohio St.3d 314 (2003-Ohio-774) (no mitigating circumstances undoing drug-conspiracy misconduct)
Longo, 94 Ohio St.3d 219 (2002-Ohio-1042) (disbarment after misprision of felony and other misconduct)
Phillips, 108 Ohio St.3d 331 (2006-Ohio-1064) (mitigation weighed against seriousness of rule violations)