Opinion
No. D.D. 87-27
Submitted February 16, 1988 —
Decided May 25, 1988.
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Indefinite suspension — Engaging in illegal conduct involving moral turpitude — Possession of narcotics with intent to distribute.
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Bar, No. 29-86-B.
On May 30, 1986, relator, Disciplinary Counsel, filed a complaint alleging two counts of misconduct against respondent, Jonathan H. Soucek. A hearing on the complaint was held before a panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Bar on September 25, 1987. The complaint was amended by adding a third count of misconduct at that proceeding, but after hearing all the evidence, the board dismissed Counts I and III.
Count II of the complaint alleged that respondent had violated DR 1-102(A)(3) (engaging in illegal conduct involving moral turpitude) and DR 1-102(A)(6) (engaging in conduct that adversely reflects on one's fitness to practice law). The evidence in support of this count established that, on November 19, 1984, respondent pled guilty to a violation of Section 841 (a)(1). Title 21, U.S. Code (possession of narcotics with intent to distribute same). The conviction resulted from respondent's involvement in negotiations to sell at least six kilograms of cocaine and fifty thousand Quaaludes to Leslie "Thunder" Morgan for over $200,000. As part of his plea, respondent agreed to testify before the federal grand jury and at trial regarding cocaine trafficking.
At the disciplinary hearing, respondent testified as to how be became involved in the transaction with Morgan. In July 1984, respondent was retained to defend Victor Gatto in connection with a felonious assault charge. He secured Gatto's release from jail by becoming the guarantor of Gatto's $10,000 bond. According to his testimony, respondent later grew concerned about whether he could rely on Gatto's subsequent appearance in court. Respondent therefore arranged a drug deal between Gatto, as seller, and Morgan, as buyer.
Morgan was another client of respondent and had purchased drugs from Gatto before. Gatto, however, was a government informant. Gatto alerted the authorities about the exchange of a cocaine sample that was to take place in a restroom at Cleveland Hopkins Airport on October 25, 1984. As a result, respondent was arrested on that date after he was found carrying a briefcase containing one kilogram of cocaine.
Based upon the evidence presented, the board found that respondent had violated DR 1-102(A)(3) and 1-102(A)(6). The board recommended that respondent be suspended from the practice of law in Ohio for one year. It further recommended that respondent be placed on one year's probation at the conclusion of that year.
J. Warren Bettis, disciplinary counsel, and Charles T. Brown, for relator.
Jonathan H. Soucek, pro se.
This court finds that respondent violated the Disciplinary Rules indicated by the board. However, we find the sanction recommended was not appropriate when compared to the misconduct committed. Accordingly, respondent is hereby ordered indefinitely suspended from the practice of law in Ohio. Costs taxed to respondent.
Judgment accordingly.
MOYER, C.J., SWEENEY, LOCHER, HOLMES, DOUGLAS and H. BROWN, JJ., concur.
WRIGHT, J., dissents.
The facts in this case indicate that respondent participated in — indeed, he was the driving force behind — a $200,000 illegal drug deal. Therefore, I believe that permanent disbarment would be a more appropriate sanction.