On Sharts Road
The Ohio Supreme Court imposed a stayed suspension with conditions of a attorney who had been suspended for a felony conviction
Shortly after midnight on February 12, 2022, a police officer observed Alexander’s vehicle make a U-turn at State Route 73 and Sharts Road in Springboro, Ohio. The vehicle continued onto the northbound ramp of Interstate 75 as the officer tried to catch up to it. While observing Alexander’s vehicle cross over four lanes of traffic to the left outermost lane, the officer activated his cruiser’s emergency lights. After activating his right turn signal, Alexander crossed back over all four lanes of the highway and stopped his vehicle on the berm.
The officer reported the license-plate number to the dispatcher before exiting his patrol car. As he approached Alexander’s vehicle, Alexander abruptly peeled out from the berm and accelerated onto the highway, fleeing the traffic stop. The officer returned to his vehicle and within seconds began a high-speed pursuit that reached speeds over 100 miles per hour on the interstate. After approximately two and one-half miles, Alexander’s vehicle left the road and struck a ditch as it exited the interstate, causing minor damage. Alexander continued to flee from the officer on Austin Boulevard and ran a red light. Although the officer drove at speeds exceeding 80 miles per hour in a 45-mile-per-hour zone, he could not close the gap between his vehicle and Alexander’s. After chasing Alexander for approximately six minutes, the officer terminated the pursuit in the interest of safety.
The Springboro Police Department’s investigation showed that a few days after the high-speed chase, Alexander took his damaged vehicle for repairs at a local body shop and rented a car to drive in the interim.
He had a bench trial on ensuing charges
The trial court found him guilty of a third-degree felony count of failure to comply with an order or signal of a police officer and acquitted him of the tampering-with-evidence charge. During the presentence investigation, Alexander admitted that he had been drinking before the pursuit and that he probably had been impaired.
He took steps to protect his clients interests prior to interim suspension and sought treatment
When a substance-use disorder contributes to an attorney’s misconduct and the attorney is committed to recovery and no longer poses a threat to the public or the judicial system, this court often tailors the sanction to assist and monitor the attorney’s recovery. See, e.g., Disciplinary Counsel v. Hoppel, 129 Ohio St.3d 53, 2011-Ohio-2672, 950 N.E.2d 171, ¶ 21, citing Disciplinary Counsel v. Connor, 105 Ohio St.3d 100, 2004-Ohio-6902, 822 N.E.2d 1235, ¶ 19. Consistent with those goals, relator has recommended that Alexander be suspended from the practice of law for one year, fully stayed on the conditions that he comply with the terms of the community-control sanction imposed in his criminal case; successfully complete a substance-abuse-treatment program, including aftercare; comply with all other requirements of his OLAP contract; and commit no further misconduct.
The court accepted the recommendation. (Mike Frisch)