Ohio Lawyer’s license to practice suspended for an undetermined amount of time.

Link for Opinion:
www.lexisone.com/lx1/caselaw/freecaselaw?action=OCLGetCaseDetail&format=FULL&sourceID=jcff&searchTerm=eYca.jQca.UYGW.Zdbe&searchFlag=y&l1loc=FCLOW

In 122 Ohio St. 3d 583; 2009 Ohio 4091; 913 N.E. 2d 443, the Ohio Supreme Court accepted the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Disciplines findings that the respondent, Aaron Ridenbaugh “ engaged in professional misconduct” and furthered the recommendation of indefinitely suspending the respondent. The Supreme Court also amended the decision by granting the respondent credit for the time that he has already endured with a suspended license.
The Ohio Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s finding that the respondent, Aaron Ridenbaugh, willfully and knowingly engaged in acts of voyeurism and use of child pornography that is a violation of Ohio Revised Codes 2933.32(A)(1); R.C. 2907.08(A); R.C. 2907.322(A)(5); R.C. 2907.323(A)(3). Also, the Ohio Supreme Court affirms the findings that the respondent violated Disciplinary Rules 1-102(A)(3) and DR 1-102(A)(6) and Prof. Cond. R.’s 8.4(b) and 8.4(h).
The respondent, Aaron Ridenbaugh, successfully petitioned the court to allow him credit for time served with a suspended license towards his indefinite suspension. On his appeals to the length of time of said suspension, the Court considered, “the duties violated, the actual or potential injury caused, the attorney’s mental state, the existence of any aggravating or mitigating circumstances, and sanctions imposed in similar cases” (see Stark Cty. Bar Assn. v. Ake, 111 Ohio St.3d 266, 2006 Ohio 5704 855 N.E. 2d 1206, P 44), “We then weigh the aggravating and mitigating factors to decide whether the circumstances warrant a more lenient or harsh disposition.” Because of the nature of the violation, the Court was compelled to uphold the sanction of an indeterminately long suspension in order to the public, deter other lawyers from committing similar acts, and to help restore and preserve the public’s trust in the legal profession. Despite testimony by the respondent’s doctor, Stephen B. Levine M.D., verifying the existence of mitigating mental deficiencies the respondent suffers from, he could not satisfy the criteria of the final and most important element in BCGD Proc. Ref. 10(b)(2)(g) test—“that the respondent is currently capable of returning to the competent, ethical, and professional practice of law.” Thus, the aggravating factors of respondent’s offenses far outweighed the mitigating factors and the Ohio Supreme Court holds that he will be indefinitely suspended from practicing law in the state and that he must meet certain criteria before he can petition for reinstatement in the future.

What I took away from this case is two-fold. First, the rules of professional conduct take very seriously the personal indiscretions and felonious violations of legal professionals, especially as pertaining to children. See DR-1-102(A)(3); Prof. Cond. R. 8.4(b); DR 1-102(A)(6); Prof. Cond. R 6.4(h). Second, the Court believes in the process of professional rehabilitation and restoration of (some) fallen lawyers and legal professionals as is seen in the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline (BCGD) Procedural Regulation 10(B)(2)(g)(i) thru (iv) outlining the elements that a mental disability must satisfy to qualify as a mitigating factor.