Richland County Bar Ass'n v. Brightbill, 90-1132

• Decision Date: 19 December 1990
• Docket Number: No. 90-1132,90-1132
• Parties: RICHLAND COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION v. BRIGHTBILL.
• Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Page 95

56 Ohio St.3d 95

564 N.E.2d 471

RICHLAND COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION v. BRIGHTBILL.

No. 90-1132.

Supreme Court of Ohio.

Submitted July 31, 1990.

Decided Dec. 19, 1990.

On December 18, 1989, relator, Richland County Bar Association, filed a complaint against respondent, James E. Brightbill, based on respondent's recent convictions on charges of impersonating a peace officer and soliciting to engage in sexual activity for hire. Relator charged respondent, inter alia, with violating DR 1-102(A)(3) (engaging in illegal conduct involving moral turpitude) and 1-102(A)(5) (engaging in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice). Respondent, in his answer filed January 9, 1990, admitted being charged with and convicted of the two offenses and receiving a $500 fine and suspended jail sentences.

A panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court held a hearing on the matter on May 11, 1990. The evidence presented by respondent's counsel tended to show that respondent had a strong aptitude for trial work, but was somewhat naive, based on his rural upbringing. Respondent was also portrayed as curious, based on his daily encounters with the criminal element in Richland County once he began working in the prosecutor's office. Respondent admitted to consorting with prostitutes on four or five occasions during the nine months he worked at the prosecutor's office. He admitted to carrying a wallet with his assistant county prosecutor badge pinned to the inner trifold pocket, which was distinctly visible when his wallet was open; however, he stated that he did not hold himself out at any time to be a police officer. Respondent admitted that he was driving a county car on one occasion in which he engaged in sexual activity with a prostitute. Respondent also admitted asking the prostitutes he engaged to return his money to him, but states he did not attempt to coerce them to do so.

Respondent claimed he pled no contest to the criminal charges to avoid a public trial and for personal reasons. As a result of the charges, respondent was dismissed from the prosecutor's office and returned to work at the family dairy farm in Loudonville. Respondent has not practiced law since he was charged with the offenses. Respondent's ordeal was closely followed by the press and, besides costing respondent his job, it cost him the friendships of many of his peers. Respondent underwent psychological counseling after his convictions, which he testified helped him to realize that he committed the sexual offense due to excessive alcohol use and loneliness.

The panel noted that the evidence presented on respondent's charge of impersonating a peace officer could not result in a conviction because the badge at issue was not one of a peace officer. However, the panel felt itself bound by respondent's no contest plea and subsequent conviction and concluded that respondent had violated DR 1-102(A)(3) and (5). The panel recommended that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for one year. Upon review, the board agreed with the panel's findings of misconduct, but recommended a public reprimand because the misconduct did not directly relate to the practice of law and because of the trauma respondent had already experienced due to the charges, the lack of clear and convincing evidence that respondent used his position to intimidate prostitutes, and the favorable character testimony.

William Travis McIntyre, Mansfield, for relator.

David L. Kitzler, Mansfield, for re...