Case Information
*1
[Cite as
Disciplinary Counsel v. Cantrell,
D ISCIPLINARY C OUNSEL v. C ANTRELL .
[Cite as
Disciplinary Counsel v. Cantrell,
suspension, to be served consecutively to indefinite suspension previously imposed.
(No. 2011-0281—Submitted May 24, 2011—Decided September 14, 2011.) N ERTIFIED R EPORT by the Boаrd of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 09-093.
__________________
Per Curiam . This court admitted respondent, Doreen M. Cantrell of Willoughby, Ohio, Attorney Registration No. 0040032, to the practice of law in Ohio in 1988. The Board оf Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline concluded that respondent engaged in professional misconduct and recommends that she be permanently disbarred from the practice of law, with сosts of these proceedings taxed to her. We agree that respondent committed professional misconduct as
found by the board; however, we reject the board’s recommended sanction and conclude that an indefinite suspension is the appropriate sanction in this case. Accordingly, we indefinitely suspend respondent from the practice of law, a sanction which is to be served consecutively to the indefinite suspension we imposed on respondent on May 20, 2010.
Procedural History On September 23, 2009, respondent pleaded guilty to two counts of
felony grand theft and one count of possession of сocaine. On December 14,
2009, we imposed an interim felony suspension of respondent’s license pursuant
*2
to Gov.Bar R. V(5)(A)(4), pending further disciplinary proceedings.
In re
Cantrell
,
{¶ 4}
On December 7, 2009, relator, Disciplinary Counsel, filed a two-
count complaint against respondent arising from the 2009 convictions, count one
relating to grand theft, and count two relating to possession of cocaine.
Disciplinary Counsel alleged that respondent’s actions violated Prof.Cond.R.
8.4(b) (a lawyer shall not commit an illegal act that reflects adversely on the
lawyer’s honesty or trustworthiness) and (h) (a lawyer shall not engage in any
other conduct that adversely reflects on the lawyer’s fitness to practice law).
The parties thereafter stipulated that respondent’s actions violated
Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(b) and (h). They further stipulated to the following mitigating
factоrs: (1) that respondent provided full and free disclosure during the
investigation, (2) that she displayed a cooperative attitude, and (3) that other
penalties or sanctions had been imposed. They also stipulаted to certain
aggravating factors, agreeing that respondent (1) exhibited a dishonest and selfish
motive, (2) engaged in multiple criminal offenses, and (3) had a prior disciplinary
record, including the interim felony suspеnsion imposed in this case and an
indefinite suspension imposed by this court on May 20, 2010, in a separate case,
Disciplinary Counsel v. Cantrell
, 125 Ohio St.3d 458,
nor submittеd additional mitigating evidence. The panel therefore accepted the parties’ stipulations regarding the findings of fact and conclusions of law and recommended permanent disbarment. The bоard adopted the panel’s findings, conclusions, and recommended sanction and further recommends that the cost of the proceedings be taxed to respondent. Respondent objects to thе board’s recommendation, arguing that her
conduct warrants an indefinite suspension rather than permanent disbarment. In *3 support of the lesser sanction, respondent argues that she had made a timely and good-faith effort to make restitution, that her dual diagnosis of chemical dependency and mental illness contributed to the cause of her misconduct, and that she is being successfully treated so as to enаble her to return to competent, ethical professional practice under specified conditions. Respondent has also attached additional mitigating evidence to her objectiоns, including medical, psychological, and testimonial reports and letters. Relator filed an answer to the objections, arguing that respondent
should not be permitted to supplement the record absent exceptional circumstances and urging that the documents do not meet the requirements for mitigation evidence. Relator further maintains that based on the evidence properly before the court, permanent disbarment is the appropriate sanction.
Misconduct
Count One On February 23, 2009, a grand jury indicted respondent on one count of tampering with records, two counts of grand theft, and two counts of falsification related to her illegally obtaining Section 8 housing. Respondent pleaded guilty to two counts of grand theft, each a felony of the fourth degree. She was sentenced to 120 days in jail with credit for 65 days served, follоwed by three years of community control. The court imposed further sanctions and conditions, including a requirement that respondent complete the NorthEast Ohio Community Alternative Program (“NEOCAP”). Upon her release from the program, respondent was to attend Alcoholics Anonymous meetings four times per week, follow all NEOCAP aftercare recommendations, continue mental- health counseling, and complete 200 hours of community service.
Count Two On July 13, 2009, respondent was indicted on one count of
possession of cocaine, one count of trafficking in cocaine, and one count of *4 complicity to trаffic in cocaine. She pleaded guilty to one count of possession of cocaine, a felony of the fifth degree, and was sentenced to 120 days with credit for 65 days served, with the same sanctions аnd conditions that were imposed in the grand-theft case.
{¶ 11} As noted earlier, respondent has admitted that her conduct violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(b) and (h). Clear and convincing evidence supports these findings, and thus, we adopt the findings and conclusions of the board as to these counts.
Sanction
In
Columbus Bar Assn. v. Linnen,
5480,
Mitigating Factors As mitigating factors, the board found that respondent had
provided full and free disclosure during the investigation, displayed a cooperative attitude, and received other penalties and sanctions. Rules and Regulations Governing Procedure on Complaints and Hearings Before the Board of Cоmmissioners on Grievances and Discipline (“BCGD Proc.Reg.”) 10(B)(2)(d) and (f). Relator has so stipulated, and we agree with the board’s determination in this respect. Respondent has also submitted additional medical, psychоlogical,
and testimonial evidence to this court in support of mitigation, but failed to
*5
present it at the hearing, and it was not considered by the board. As we held in
Columbus Bar Assn. v. Sterner
(1996),
Aggravating Factors As aggravating factors, the board found pursuant to stipulations of
the parties that respondent had exhibited a dishonest or selfish motive, engaged in
multiple criminal offenses, failed to appear at the board hearing, and has prior
disciplinary offenses, including an interim felony suspension relating to the
current charges and an indefinite suspension imposed by this court on May 20,
2010, for using a client trust account to pay personal expenses, represеnting a
decedent’s estate while her license remained inactive, and receiving attorney fees
not approved by the probate court.
Disciplinary Counsel v. Cantrell
, 125 Ohio
St.3d 458,
engaged in multiple criminal offenses, and failed to appear at the board hearing,
all of which are aggravating factors. BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(b), (d), and (e).
Although we also agree that respondent’s May 20, 2010 indefinite suspension
qualifies as a prior disciplinary offense and an aggravating factor, BCGD
Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(a), we disagree with the board that the interim felony
suspension relating to the current charges constitutes a prior disciplinary offense.
Our precedent indicates that a prior interim felony suspension has not heretofore
*6
been considered as a prior disciplinary offense. See, e.g.,
Disciplinary Counsel v.
Ulinski
, 106 Ohio St.3d 53,
justifies our modification of its recommended sanction from permanent
disbarment to indefinite suspension. Our decision is in accord with others in
which we have imposed indefinite suspensions. See, e.g.,
Disciplinary Counsel v.
LoDico
, 118 Ohio St.3d 316,
mitigating factors, and reviewed the sanctions imposed for comparable conduct, we adopt the board’s findings of fact and conclusions of law, but reject its recommendation that respondent be permanently disbarred. Instead, we hereby indefinitely suspend respondent from the practice of law, which suspension shall be served consecutively to the indefinite suspension we imposed on May 20, 2010. Costs are taxed to respondent.
Judgment accordingly. *7 O’C ONNOR , C.J., and P FEIFER , L UNDBERG TRATTON , O’D ONNELL , L ANZINGER , UPP , and M C G EE B ROWN , JJ., concur.
__________________
Jonathan E. Coughlan, Disciplinary Counsel, and Heather L. Hissom, Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator.
Doreen Marie Cantrell, pro se.
______________________