Disciplinary Counsel v. Whitfield

132 Ohio St. 3d 284, 2012-Ohio-2708 (2012) · Supreme Court of Ohio · June 20, 2012 · No. 2011-0284 and 2011-1755

Summary

The Supreme Court of Ohio suspended James Jonathan Whitfield from practicing law for two years, with credit for time served under an interim felony suspension. The suspension was conditioned on extending his mental-health recovery contract and continuing to follow treatment recommendations, based on his aggravated-assault conviction and unauthorized practice of law in Kentucky.

Court
Supreme Court of Ohio
Writing for the Court
Per Curiam; O'Connor, C.J.; Pfeifer; Lundberg Stratton; Lanzinger; Cupp; McGee Brown; O'Donnell
Jurisdiction
Ohio
Decision date
June 20, 2012
Docket number
2011-0284 and 2011-1755
Procedural posture
Attorney-discipline proceeding on a certified report of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline. The Supreme Court rejected an earlier recommended consent sanction, remanded for further proceedings, and reviewed the board's subsequent recommendation.
Standard of review
The Supreme Court independently determines the appropriate sanction in attorney-discipline proceedings based on the stipulated facts, findings of misconduct, aggravating and mitigating factors, and comparable disciplinary cases.
Precedential value
Published Ohio Supreme Court disciplinary decision; precedential as to the stated professional-conduct violations and sanction analysis.
Parties
Disciplinary Counsel v. James Jonathan Whitfield
Disposition
other

Topics

administrative lawagency adjudicationjudicial review of agency action

Practice areas

legal ethics and professional responsibilityattorney disciplineunauthorized practice of law

Questions Presented

  1. Whether Whitfield's aggravated-assault conviction constituted conduct adversely reflecting on his fitness to practice law.
  2. Whether Whitfield's representation of a client and filing of legal documents in a Kentucky court while unlicensed there constituted the unauthorized practice of law.
  3. What sanction was appropriate for the established misconduct, considering the aggravating and mitigating factors and credit for time served under the interim felony suspension.

Holdings

  1. Whitfield's felony aggravated-assault conviction constituted conduct adversely reflecting on his fitness to practice law in violation of Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(h).
  2. Whitfield engaged in the unauthorized practice of law by representing a client in a Kentucky paternity action and signing documents filed with the Kentucky court while not licensed to practice law in Kentucky, violating Prof.Cond.R. 5.5(a).
  3. A two-year suspension from the practice of law, with credit for time served under the interim felony suspension, was appropriate, conditioned on extending Whitfield's Ohio Lawyers Assistance Program contract for two years from the opinion date and continuing to comply with his mental-health professionals' treatment recommendations.

Key quotations

Accordingly, we suspend James Jonathan Whitfield from the practice of law in Ohio for two years but credit him for the time served under the interim felony suspension imposed on May 24, 2010, conditioned upon the extension of his OLAP contract for two years from the date of this opinion and his continued compliance with the treatment recommendations of his mental-health professionals. (¶ 14)

Factual background

Whitfield, an Ohio attorney, pleaded guilty to fourth-degree felony aggravated assault after striking another man in the head with a glass bottle, causing serious facial and eye injuries. While serving as a legal-services coordinator, he represented a client in a Kentucky paternity action despite not being licensed to practice law in Kentucky, signing and filing an entry of appearance and other documents. Whitfield reported the felony conviction, cooperated with the disciplinary investigation, and entered into a mental-health recovery contract with the Ohio Lawyers Assistance Program.

Procedural history

Disciplinary Counsel filed a two-count complaint alleging that Whitfield's felony aggravated-assault conviction adversely reflected on his fitness to practice law and that he engaged in the unauthorized practice of law in Kentucky. The parties initially proposed a one-year suspension with six months stayed, but the Supreme Court rejected that recommendation and remanded. After remand, the parties stipulated to the facts, misconduct, and mitigation; the board recommended a two-year suspension with credit for time served under the interim felony suspension, and the Supreme Court adopted that recommendation with additional treatment-related conditions.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…