Jail Visit Created Issues

An oral argument tomorrow before the Ohio Supreme Court

Disciplinary Counsel v. Eric E. Norton, Case No. 2024-1723
Cuyahoga County

A Cuyahoga County lawyer faces a two-year suspension from the practice of law, with one year stayed, following his conviction for bringing methamphetamine into the county jail.

Eric Norton objects to the length of the suspension proposed by the Board of Professional Conduct. Norton admits he violated ethics rules, but notes the Ohio Supreme Court imposed an interim suspension following his indictment in March 2023. Because he hasn’t been able to practice law for nearly two years, barring him from practicing for at least another year is unduly harsh compared to other lawyers sanctioned for substance abuse issues, he argues.

Norton’s objections to the suspension triggered an oral argument before the Ohio Supreme Court.

Attorney Arrested at Justice Center
In December 2022, Norton entered the Cuyahoga County Justice Center to meet with a client who was an inmate at the jail. While going through security, Norton realized he had a small plastic baggie containing meth with him. Before going to the jail, Norton went into the restroom and hid the drugs under a trash can. He then entered the jail to visit with his client.

Security officers observed his quick trip to the restroom and found the drugs. A county sheriff’s sergeant questioned Norton and seized his cellphone. A search of the phone revealed two images that constituted “illegal child abuse material.” Norton maintained the meth was for his personal use and he didn’t intend to smuggle it into the jail.

He asserted the illicit material on his cellphone was sent to him by his drug dealer. Norton said he communicated with his dealer through an app he rarely used that had an auto-download feature, and that he didn’t download the photos. He told officials how to locate his dealer and the source of the images.

Lawyer Completes Program To Avoid Criminal Convictions
Three months after the incident, Norton was indicted in March 2023 for five felonies, including drug possession, illegal use of a minor in nudity-oriented material, and possession of criminal tools. Norton requested intervention in lieu of conviction (ILC), which the trial judge granted. Norton pleaded guilty to two counts, drug possession and possessing criminal tools. The other charges were dismissed. When he completed the requirements of his ILC one year later, the two charges he pleaded to were dismissed.

The ILC required Norton to abide by several conditions, including following all rules prescribed by the probation department and abstaining from the use of illegal drugs and alcohol.

When Norton was indicted, the Office of Disciplinary Counsel asked the Supreme Court to place Norton on an immediate interim remedial suspension, which the Court granted. Norton continues to be under the suspension and cannot practice law. After Norton received ILC, the disciplinary counsel filed a complaint alleging professional misconduct against Norton with the Board of Professional Conduct.

Lawyer Fails To Comply With Program Requirements
Along with agreeing to abide by the terms of his ILC, Norton entered into a contract with the Ohio Lawyers Assistance Program (OLAP) to help with his substance use disorder. Norton states that he developed a drug addiction in 2020 and describes his recovery as “admittedly uneven.”

The Board of Professional Conduct reported that Norton tested positive for meth in April 2023, the month after he was indicted. He also reported relapsing in January, March, and July 2024. His OLAP monitor directed him to enter inpatient rehabilitation, but he refused, and his OLAP contract was suspended until February 2024. The contract was reactivated in June 2024 when he completed a treatment program. At the time of his August 2024 disciplinary hearing, his OLAP monitor reported that Norton wasn’t in compliance with his contract.

At his hearing, he presented a written report from his counselor, stating that he remained sober and could return to the competent, ethical, and professional practice of law. When questioned, Norton admitted he had not told his counselor about his July 2024 positive test for meth.

The board found Norton’s actions violated conduct rules by engaging in an illegal act that reflects on his honesty and trustworthiness, and conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law. The board also noted Norton received a six-month stayed suspension in 2007 for neglecting two client matters and other rule violations.

After comparing his history and actions to previously sanctioned attorneys, the board recommends that the Supreme Court suspend him for two years, with the second stayed with conditions. Norton must comply with his OLAP contract, submit to random drug and alcohol testing, comply with all court orders, and pay the costs of the proceedings.

Credit for Time Served Should Be Awarded, Attorney Argues
Norton maintains a fully stayed suspension is appropriate because he has been unable to practice for nearly two years and none of his actions harmed any clients. He observes that the Court has imposed less time out for other attorneys who committed more serious crimes and harmed clients by their drug use.

Norton also notes that as his case was pending, the Court ruled in Disciplinary Counsel v. Hartley that credit can’t be granted for time served under an interim remedial suspension. Prior to that case, the Court gave credit for time served for interim remedial suspensions. While the Court noted in Hartley that the disciplinary rules don’t specifically state credit can be granted for time served under an interim remedial suspension, they also don’t specify that the Court can’t grant time served, he asserts. He urges the Court to use its inherent authority to grant time served.

Norton also disputes that child pornography was found on his cellphone during the criminal investigation. He argues the board found no evidence the young female in the images was a minor and maintains the false accusations were discredited during the criminal case. The charge against him was dismissed, he notes, and he claims the inflammatory accusation was factored into the disciplinary process as a way to get the Court to judge him more harshly.

Actual Suspension Appropriate, Disciplinary Counsel Maintains
The disciplinary counsel argues that Norton’s inability to sustain a sufficient period of sobriety justifies the suspension. He continuously violated terms of his ILC and OLAP contract by using drugs, including testing positive one month before his disciplinary hearing, the office notes.  Norton points to cases where attorneys with drug issues received shorter suspensions than the one proposed for him, but the disciplinary counsel notes the lawyers in those cases provided proof of sustained periods of sobriety.

The disciplinary counsel explains that the goal of attorney discipline is to protect the public, and argues Norton needs to maintain a more sustained period of sobriety to ensure potential clients aren’t harmed by his conduct.

– Dan Trevas

Docket entries, memoranda, briefs (including amicus briefs), and other information about this case may be accessed through the case docket.