Cuyahoga County Bar Ass'n v. Rutherford ( 2006 )

Moyer, C.J.,

dissenting.

(¶ 19} I respectfully dissent from the sanction imposed on the respondent by the majority. The respondent stipulated to conduct that involved repeated instances of the neglect of legal matters and dishonest behavior. I am not unmindful of respondent’s mitigation evidence. However, “we have consistently held lawyers to a high standard of honesty and trust and have suspended lawyers who have failed to adhere to that standard.” Columbus Bar Assn. v. Dougherty, 105 Ohio St.3d 307, 2005-Ohio-1825, 825 N.E.2d 1094, ¶ 20 (Moyer, C.J., dissenting).

{¶ 20} While the mitigating factors in this case support permitting the suspension to be stayed on the conditions articulated in the majority opinion, the respondent’s multiple counts of misconduct warrant a longer suspension. In my view, the court should impose a one-year suspension, stayed on the conditions that respondent serve a one-year probation, during which he shall remain in treatment for his mental disability, including entering a recovery contract with the Ohio Lawyers’ Assistance Program, and cooperate with procedures to monitor his practice and assure compliance with ethical and professional standards.

Steven M. Ott, Fred C. Crosby, and Ellen S. Mandell, Bar Counsel, for relator. William H. Smith & Associates, L.P.A., and William H. Smith, for respondent.

O’Connor, J., concurs in the foregoing opinion.