Ohio State Bar Assn. v. Johnson, 2001-2204.

• Decision Date: 21 August 2002
• Docket Number: No. 2001-2204.,2001-2204.
• Parties: OHIO STATE BAR ASSOCIATION v. JOHNSON.
• Court: Ohio Supreme Court

772 N.E.2d 1184

96 Ohio St.3d 192

2002 Ohio 3998

OHIO STATE BAR ASSOCIATION v. JOHNSON.

No. 2001-2204.

Supreme Court of Ohio.

Submitted March 12, 2002.

Decided August 21, 2002.

John J. Mueller, Cincinnati, and Eugene P. Whetzel, Columbus, for relator.

Ben E. Espy, Columbus, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

{¶ 1} We must decide in this case how to appropriately sanction an attorney who committed extortion while serving as a state senator. The Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court recommended that respondent, Jeffery D. Johnson of Cleveland, Ohio, Attorney Registration No. 0025058, be permanently disbarred from the practice of law in Ohio after finding him in violation of DR 1-102(A)(3) (engaging in illegal conduct involving moral turpitude), 1-102(A)(4) (engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation), 1-102(A)(5) (engaging in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice), and 1-102(A)(6) (engaging in conduct that adversely reflects on a lawyer's fitness to practice law). However, because we believe that respondent may, with committed efforts to rehabilitate, someday be capable of contributing professionally to the community again, we have decided to suspend respondent indefinitely from the practice of law.

{¶ 2} Respondent served in the Ohio Senate from 1990 until 1999. In 1999, he was convicted of three counts of interfering with commerce by extortion under color of official right in violation of Section 1951, Title 18, U.S.Code (the "Hobbs Act"). He was sentenced to 15 months' incarceration, one year of supervised release, 250 hours of community service, and payment of a small assessment. His convictions were affirmed in United States v. Johnson (Sept. 5, 2000), C.A. 6 No. 99-3259, unreported, 2000 WL 1290317.

{¶ 3} Respondent was convicted of these crimes because in his capacity as a state senator, he induced various grocers and others to either give money to his election campaigns or to lend him money as a quid pro quo for his efforts on their behalf before government agencies. In exchange for payoffs based loosely on the value of the benefit to the contributor, respondent helped these constituents obtain lottery licenses, Women, Infants, and Children Program grocery contracts, liquor permits, and other governmentally regulated privileges. Respondent was caught and stopped largely because one of the grocers cooperated in an FBI investigation of his activities.

{¶ 4} We suspended respondent from the practice of law for an interim period on September 15, 2000, after receiving a certified copy of the judgment entry of his conviction. In re Johnson (2000), 90 Ohio St.3d 1410, 735 N.E.2d 451.

{¶ 5} On February 5, 2001, relator, Ohio State Bar Association, filed a complaint charging that respondent's conviction and the conduct underlying it violated the Code of Professional Responsibility. A panel of the board heard the cause, found the cited misconduct, and recommended that respondent be permanently disbarred. The board adopted the panel's findings, conclusions, and recommended sanction.

{¶ 6} We concur in the board's findings and conclusion that respondent violated DR 1-102(A)(3), 1-102(A)(4), 1-102(A)(5), and 1-102(A)(6). We also acknowledge that the board's recommendation in this case is based firmly on precedent establishing that permanent disbarment is the accepted sanction when attorneys in public office commit extortion. Disciplinary Counsel v. DiCarlantonio (1994), 68 Ohio St.3d 479, 628 N.E.2d 1355; Disciplinary Counsel v. Mosely (1994), 69 Ohio St.3d 401, 632 N.E.2d 1287. But after reviewing the testimony, exhibits, and arguments of counsel, we are persuaded that the mitigation evidence justifies a sanction less severe than permanent disbarment.

{¶ 7} In executing our constitutional responsibility to oversee the practice of law in this state, our duty requires us to do more than just protect the public from those ethically unfit to represent them. We must also be careful not to deprive the public of those who, through sufficient rehabilitation, may be able to recover their ethical orientation and serve competently in a professional capacity. Thus, when an attorney has committed misdeeds that otherwise might have warranted disbarment, we have considered the attorney's community...