Disciplinary Counsel v. Whitfield, 132 Ohio St. 3d 284

Whitfield admitted to Ohio bar in 2006 and faced disciplinary action after a felony conviction (aggravated assault) in 2010.
interim felony suspension began May 24, 2010, due to the conviction.
He also faced a separate suspension for failing to register for the 2011–2013 biennium.
Whitfield engaged in unauthorized practice of law in Kentucky by signing an entry of appearance and related filings despite not being licensed there.
He represented a Kentucky client in a paternity action and signed documents filed in that court.
The Supreme Court ultimately imposed a two-year suspension with conditional credit for time served, plus extended OLAP obligations and mental-health treatment requirements.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Whitfield’s conduct violated professional rules	Disciplinary Counsel argues misconduct violated Rule 8.4(h) and Rule 5.5(a)	Whitfield concedes misconduct but argues sanctions should be narrower	Yes, violations established under 8.4(h) and 5.5(a) for counts and conduct
Appropriate sanction considering aggravating/mitigating factors	Board’s and counsel’s recommendation of two-year suspension with credit aligned with mitigating factors	Whitfield argues for a fully stayed suspension or lesser discipline	Two-year suspension with credit for time served, plus specific conditions (OLAP extension and treatment)

Disciplinary Counsel v. Broeren, 115 Ohio St.3d 473 (2007-Ohio-5251) (aggravation/mitigation factors in sanction determination)
Disciplinary Counsel v. Goodall, 103 Ohio St.3d 501 (2004-Ohio-5583) (illustrative of credit for time served under prior suspension)
In re Whitfield, 125 Ohio St.3d 1428 (2010-Ohio-2261) (interim felony suspension context and related proceedings)
In re Attorney Registration Suspension of Whitfield, 130 Ohio St.3d 1420 (2011-Ohio-5627) (addressing registration suspension and related disciplinary posture)