[This opinion has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 

.]




                OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. BLACKWELL.
           [Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Blackwell, 

.]
Attorneys at law—Misconduct—Two-year suspension with second year of the
        suspension stayed—Continuing to practice law after being suspended for
        failure to meet continuing legal education requirements—Practicing law
        for fifteen months while not maintaining a current Certificate of
        Registration as required by Gov.Bar R. VI(1).
    (No. 96-2789—Submitted May 20, 1997—Decided September 24, 1997.)
    ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and
                     Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 96-04.
                                  __________________
        {¶ 1} Effective December 17, 1990, fifteen months late, Joseph Henry
Blackwell of Cleveland, Ohio, Attorney 

 (“respondent”),
registered for the 1989/1991 biennium. During the time he was not registered
respondent engaged in the practice of law. Respondent also failed to complete his
continuing legal education (“CLE”) requirement for the 1989 reporting period.
As a result, we imposed a sanction upon respondent of $65 in July 1991, which he
paid later that month.
        {¶ 2} In April 1993, we again imposed a sanction upon respondent, this
time in the amount of $680 for failing to complete his CLE requirement for the
1990/1991 reporting period. Respondent paid that sanction in November 1994,
eighteen months late. On August 11, 1995, we suspended respondent from the
practice of law for failing to meet his CLE requirement for the 1992/1993 reporting
period and ordered him both to pay a $750 fine and to complete seven specific
actions before September 11, 1995, one of which was to notify his clients of his
                             SUPREME COURT OF OHIO




suspension.   In re Report of Comm. on Continuing Legal Edn., Blackwell,
Respondent (1995), 

, 1429, 

, 1314.
       {¶ 3} Despite this order, after August 11, 1995, respondent continued to
appear in nine separate actions in the Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court.
Respondent did not notify eight of the clients in these actions of his suspension.
       {¶ 4} On November 14, 1995, respondent filed for reinstatement to the
practice of law, although he had not completed the seven specific actions required
by our order of August 11, 1995. Among other things, he did not provide proof
that he had notified his clients and opposing counsel of his suspension by certified
mail. Respondent has not yet been reinstated.
       {¶ 5} On August 16, 1996, relator, Office of Disciplinary Counsel, filed a
three-count amended complaint charging that respondent had violated three
Disciplinary Rules and one Rule for the Government of the Bar. On August 27,
1996, the parties stipulated to the facts and waived a hearing. Respondent filed a
memorandum pointing out that he had practiced law for thirty-three years and, until
this complaint was filed, he had never been charged with a violation of the Code of
Professional Responsibility. Respondent said that after his wife died in 1987, he
began to abuse alcohol and continued until he entered a treatment facility in 1990.
Respondent said that he has maintained sobriety for the past five years.
       {¶ 6} A panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline
of the Supreme Court (“board”) found, on the basis of the stipulated facts, that
respondent had, by his actions and inaction, violated DR 1-102(A)(5) (engaging in
conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice), 1-102(A)(6) (engaging in
conduct that adversely reflects upon the fitness to practice law), 3-101(B)
(practicing law in a jurisdiction where to do so would be in violation of the
regulations of the professions of that jurisdiction), and Gov.Bar R. VII (the
unauthorized practice of law).     The panel recommended that respondent be




                                         2
                                January Term, 1997




indefinitely suspended from the practice of law. The board adopted the findings,
conclusions, and recommendations of the panel.
                              __________________
       Geoffrey Stern, Disciplinary Counsel, and Sally Ann Steuk, Assistant
Disciplinary Counsel, for relator.
       Richard S. Koblentz and Peter A. Russell, for respondent.
                              __________________
       Per Curiam.
       {¶ 7} We adopt the findings and conclusions of the board. In a case decided
this same day, we suspended an attorney for one year with six months stayed
because he practiced after having been suspended. Disciplinary Counsel v. Bancsi
(1997), 

, 

. In Bancsi, the attorney was originally
suspended for failing to meet the substance abuse component of his CLE
requirement and continuing to represent clients during the five-week period before
his pending reinstatement motion was granted.
       {¶ 8} In this case respondent not only continued to practice law after having
been suspended for failure to meet his CLE requirements, he also practiced for
fifteen months while not maintaining a current Certificate of Registration as
required by Gov.Bar R. VI(1). Moreover, while the attorney in Bancsi practiced
for five weeks after being notified of his suspension, respondent in this case
practiced for five years while delinquent in his CLE requirements. An attorney
who continues to practice law while his license is under suspension violates DR 3-
101(B). Akron Bar Assn. v Thorpe (1988), 

, 

. An
attorney who continues to practice law while failing to comply with the registration
requirements of Gov.Bar R. VI(1) and failing to comply with the sanctions imposed
for not meeting the CLE requirements of Gov.Bar R. X violates DR 1-102(A)(6)
(engaging in conduct that adversely reflects upon the fitness to practice law).
Toledo Bar Assn. v. Christensen (1996), 

, 

.




                                         3
                             SUPREME COURT OF OHIO




       {¶ 9} “The normal penalty for continuing to practice law while under
suspension is disbarment.” Disciplinary Counsel v. Koury (1997), 

, 

; Akron Bar Assn. v. Thorpe. However, in view
of the specific facts and circumstances of this case, and particularly in view of the
board’s recommendation and the fact that most of respondent’s violations occurred
during a period when he was achieving a successful recovery from alcoholism, we
impose a two-year suspension upon respondent with the second year of the
suspension period stayed. Costs taxed to respondent.
                                                             Judgment accordingly.
       MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur.
                              __________________




                                         4