[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as
Disciplinary Counsel v. Haven, Slip Opinion No. 

.]




                                        NOTICE
     This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in an
     advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports. Readers are requested to
     promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 65
     South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographical or other
     formal errors in the opinion, in order that corrections may be made before
     the opinion is published.




                         SLIP OPINION NO. 

                         DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. HAVEN.
  [Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it
        may be cited as Disciplinary Counsel v. Haven, Slip Opinion No.
                                   

.]
Attorneys—Misconduct—Violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct—One-
        year suspension.
(No. 2024-1108—Submitted September 17, 2024—Decided November 7, 2024.)
   ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Professional Conduct of the Supreme
                                 Court, No. 2023-044.
                                 __________________
        The per curiam opinion below was joined by KENNEDY, C.J., and FISCHER,
DEWINE, DONNELLY, STEWART, and DETERS, JJ. BRUNNER, J., did not participate.


        Per Curiam.
        {¶ 1} Respondent, Rodney Eugene Haven, of Wooster, Ohio, Attorney

 was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 2007.
                               SUPREME COURT OF OHIO




        {¶ 2} On December 21, 2023, relator, disciplinary counsel, filed a
complaint with the Board of Professional Conduct alleging that a standoff Haven
instigated with law enforcement, his conviction for operating a motor vehicle while
impaired, his interruption of court proceedings, and his disruptive conduct during
the ensuing disciplinary investigation violated the Rules of Professional Conduct.
The parties entered into stipulations of fact, misconduct, and aggravating and
mitigating factors and submitted stipulated exhibits.
        {¶ 3} After a hearing, a panel of the board issued a report finding that Haven
committed the charged misconduct and recommended that he receive a one-year
suspension with conditions on his reinstatement. The board adopted the panel’s
findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommended sanction.
        {¶ 4} After reviewing the record, we adopt the board’s findings of fact and
misconduct as well as its recommended sanction.
                                  I. MISCONDUCT
           A. Standoff with Law Enforcement and Resulting Convictions
        {¶ 5} On January 5, 2023, the Wooster Police Department received from a
suicide hotline a tip warning that Haven was armed and suicidal. Within the
previous several days, Haven had learned that his wife was leaving him. The tip
further warned that if police came to Haven’s house, “the gun [would come] out.”
        {¶ 6} After the police received the tip, an officer contacted Haven by phone.
Although Haven informed the officer that he did not want to use his firearm, he
also said he would not allow the police into his home, adding: “Anybody comes in
the house . . . I’ve got seven bullets, Colt .45, in the chamber that can do enough
damage . . . I just need one for me.” (Ellipses in original.) Haven had also left a
voicemail message for his wife, saying: “If you want me to fucking blow my brains
out, I’ll do it right now . . . I would do it in under 60 seconds.” (Ellipsis in original.)
After nearly an hour on the phone with Haven, the police determined that there was
no one else in the house and—citing safety concerns about making physical




                                            2
                               January Term, 2024




contact—decided to permit Haven to end the call. When the police reached out to
Haven in the afternoon, he seemed to have calmed down.
       {¶ 7} Later that day, however, the police learned that Haven was driving to
the United States Military Academy at West Point, where his son was enrolled,
possibly intending to commit suicide. Officers issued a law-enforcement bulletin
stating that Haven was armed, intoxicated, and possibly suicidal.
       {¶ 8} At some point, after talking with his brother by phone, Haven
voluntarily turned around and began to drive home. Multiple cruisers from the
Wayne County Sheriff’s Office, the Smithville Police Department, and the Wooster
Police Department intercepted Haven’s vehicle near State Route 585 and Vinton
Woods Drive in Wooster. Police ordered the closure of State Route 585 and
ordered Haven to get out of his vehicle. He refused for 24 minutes, informing
officers that he had a loaded firearm and repeatedly telling them to shoot him. An
officer was eventually able to contact Haven by cellphone and spoke to him for
approximately 40 minutes. The officer convinced Haven to exit his vehicle, after
which he was taken into custody. Officers found a loaded .45 caliber pistol in the
vehicle’s center console.
       {¶ 9} Rather than arrest Haven, Wooster police transported him to the
hospital for an emergency mental-health evaluation under R.C. 5122.10. At intake,
Haven had a blood-alcohol concentration of 0.247—over three times the legal limit.
       {¶ 10} Haven was indicted for improperly handling a firearm in a motor
vehicle, State v. Haven, Wayne C.P. No. 2023 CRC-I 000117, and for operating a
motor vehicle while impaired (“OVI”), State v. Haven, Wayne C.P. No. 2023 CRC-
I 000301. He applied for intervention in lieu of conviction in the improper-handling
case, which the court granted on July 10, 2023. He then pleaded guilty to both
charges.   For the OVI conviction, Haven was sentenced to three days of
incarceration or a 72-hour driver-intervention program and 12 months of
community control.




                                         3
                             SUPREME COURT OF OHIO




                                 B. Divorce Case
       {¶ 11} In January 2023, Haven’s wife filed a petition for divorce. Haven
attended a hearing on the divorce petition before a magistrate in the Wayne County
Court of Common Pleas on September 25, 2023. During cross-examination, Haven
repeatedly failed to directly respond to questions and remained highly agitated. At
one point, the magistrate admonished Haven, stating: “[A]nswer the question that
is asked of you, nothing else.” However, Haven continued to provide erratic
responses and commentary throughout the hearing, requiring repeated redirection
by his counsel and the magistrate.
       {¶ 12} Eventually, after a short break, the magistrate decided to suspend the
hearing. The magistrate was concerned that Haven either was incompetent to
proceed or could have a mental-health crisis if the hearing proceeded. Additionally,
the magistrate was concerned about the general welfare of everyone in the
courtroom.
       {¶ 13} The magistrate ordered Haven to schedule a psychological
evaluation, finding it “necessary and appropriate that [he] submit to a psychological
assessment to determine his competency in order to proceed in properly litigating
this case and assisting his counsel.” In March 2024, a psychologist found that
Haven was “cognitively able to participate in the court process” but noted that
Haven’s judgment was “strongly suspicious as his world appears to have been
shattered” by the looming divorce.
                             C. Disciplinary Hearing
       {¶ 14} The panel noted that during his disciplinary hearing, Haven had
numerous irrational and irrelevant outbursts. It further noted that as of the date of
the hearing, Haven apparently continued to suffer from the same mental-health
issues that afflicted him at the time of the charged misconduct.




                                         4
                                 January Term, 2024




                                 D. Board Findings
        {¶ 15} Based on the evidence and stipulations of the parties, the board found
by clear and convincing evidence that Haven’s conduct violated Prof.Cond.R.
8.4(d) (prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct that is prejudicial to the
administration of justice) and 8.4(h) (prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct
that adversely reflects on the lawyer’s fitness to practice law). See Disciplinary
Counsel v. Gernert, 

 (“in order to find a violation of
Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(h), the evidence must demonstrate that either (1) the lawyer
engaged in misconduct that adversely reflects on the lawyer’s fitness to practice
law even though that conduct is not specifically prohibited by the rules or (2) the
conduct giving rise to a specific rule violation is so egregious as to warrant an
additional finding that it adversely reflects on the lawyer’s fitness to practice law”),
citing Disciplinary Counsel v. Bricker, 

.
                                  II. SANCTION
        {¶ 16} When imposing sanctions for attorney misconduct, we consider all
relevant factors, including the ethical duties that the lawyer violated, the
aggravating and mitigating factors listed in Gov.Bar R. V(13), and the sanctions
imposed in similar cases.
        {¶ 17} The board found that no aggravating factors are present in this case.
See Gov.Bar R. V(13)(B). As for mitigating factors, the board found that Haven
had no prior disciplinary record and that other penalties or sanctions had been
imposed for his misconduct. See Gov.Bar R. V(13)(C)(1) and (6). The board also
considered Haven’s treatment in lieu of conviction, in which he has completed 60
hours of community service, a 72-hour diversion program, and more than 160 hours
of Veterans Affairs in-house treatment and counseling. The board also noted that
Haven had paid all outstanding fines and costs related to his convictions, although
he remains on probation until July 2025.




                                           5
                            SUPREME COURT OF OHIO




       {¶ 18} The board recommends that we suspend Haven from the practice of
law in Ohio for one year, with his reinstatement conditioned on (1) his petitioning
for reinstatement under Gov.Bar R. V(25), (2) his completion of the intervention-
in-lieu-of-conviction program in his improper-handling case or any sanction
imposed by the court if he fails to complete the program, (3) his having no pending
criminal matters or any form of community-control sanction deriving from his
current, or any future, criminal case(s), (4) his completion of three hours of
continuing legal education (“CLE”) focused on alcoholism, substance abuse, or
mental-health issues, in addition to the requirements of Gov.Bar R. X, (5) his
completion of an evaluation by the Ohio Lawyers Assistance Program (“OLAP”)
and compliance with any resulting treatment recommendations, and (6) his
providing documentation from a qualified healthcare professional, selected or
approved by relator, (a) certifying that Haven does not suffer from a mental or
substance-use disorder that would impair his ability to practice law and (b) opining
that Haven is able to return to the competent, ethical, and professional practice of
law.
       {¶ 19} In making this recommendation, the board relied on various cases,
including Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn. v. Strauss, 

; Warren Cty.
Bar Assn. v. West, 

; Disciplinary Counsel v. Howard, 2009-Ohio-
4173; and Erie-Huron Cty. Bar Assn. v. Bailey and Bailey, 

.
       {¶ 20} In Strauss, the attorney rear-ended a police cruiser on Interstate 271
in snowy conditions and left the scene without stopping.        Strauss eventually
abandoned his vehicle, fled on foot, and was arrested while walking in the middle
of a nearby road. A breath-alcohol test performed soon thereafter showed that
Strauss had a blood-alcohol content of 0.148.          He was convicted of six
misdemeanor offenses, including operating a vehicle while intoxicated.          We
concluded that Stauss’s misconduct violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(b) (committing an
illegal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty or trustworthiness) and




                                         6
                                January Term, 2024




8.4(h). There were no aggravating factors, while mitigation included the absence
of a prior disciplinary record and Strauss’s cooperation in the disciplinary process.
Id. at ¶ 10-11. We imposed a one-year suspension, fully stayed on the conditions
that he engage in no further misconduct and abide by the terms of the probation
imposed by the municipal court. Id. at ¶ 18.
       {¶ 21} In West, the attorney became intoxicated at his office after his
fiancée told him that she was ending their relationship. West then began to threaten
suicide and instigated a standoff with police officers for several hours, during which
he threatened to shoot the officers if they did not leave his property. West
eventually stepped outside, discharged his gun, and temporarily got behind the
wheel of a police cruiser before police were able to persuade him to put his gun
down. He was taken into custody and diagnosed with acute alcohol intoxication.
West pleaded guilty to, and was convicted of, carrying a concealed weapon. We
concluded that West’s conduct violated a former disciplinary rule equivalent to
Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(h). There were no aggravating factors, while the only mitigating
factor we identified was evidence of West’s good reputation. See id. at ¶ 5-8. We
imposed a two-year suspension with one year stayed on the condition that West
continue his compliance with the OLAP requirements. Id. at ¶ 11.
       {¶ 22} In Howard, 

, the attorney discharged a firearm out
a window into his backyard, where a police officer was conducting an investigation
in the attorney’s neighborhood. Although Howard initially mistook the officer for
a trespassing intruder, he refused to communicate with the police once he had
learned the truth. A standoff ensued, lasting several hours, which ended only after
SWAT officers fired tear gas into Howard’s home. Ultimately, Howard pleaded
guilty to two felonies, and we concluded that his conduct violated a former
disciplinary rule equivalent to Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(b). The board found mitigating the
fact that Howard had practiced for nearly 30 years without prior discipline,
cooperated in the disciplinary proceedings, had other penalties imposed for his




                                          7
                               SUPREME COURT OF OHIO




misconduct, and submitted letters in support of his character and reputation. Id. at
¶ 15. However, because Howard had “‘twice shot a loaded handgun at a uniformed
police officer at close range,’ ” the board “found the aggravating factors
overwhelming.” Id. at ¶ 16, quoting the board’s report. The board also cited
concerns about Howard’s mental health—at the time of the incident and of the
hearing—in making its recommendation. Id. at ¶ 18-20. We imposed a two-year
suspension and conditioned Howard’s reinstatement on his proving to a reasonable
degree of psychological certainty that he was able to return to the competent,
ethical, and professional practice of law. Id. at ¶ 25.
        {¶ 23} In Bailey and Bailey, 

, an attorney refused to
participate in a client’s trial on the grounds that the court had refused to appoint his
requested expert witness. Bailey apparently believed that this strategy would
require the court to continue the trial to reconsider its prior rulings, stay the trial, or
declare a mistrial. The court found Bailey in direct contempt of court for his
conduct, sentenced him to 30 days in jail, and imposed a fine. We concluded that
Bailey’s misconduct violated Prof.Cond.R. 3.5(a)(5) (requiring a lawyer to refrain
from conduct intended to disrupt a tribunal), 3.5(a)(6) (prohibiting a lawyer from
engaging in undignified or discourteous conduct that is degrading to a tribunal),
and 8.4(d). Two aggravating factors were present—Bailey had committed multiple
offenses and refused to acknowledge the wrongfulness of his conduct. Id. at ¶ 33,
40-41. Mitigating factors included the absence of prior discipline, the absence of a
dishonest or selfish motive, evidence of his good character and reputation, and the
imposition of other sanctions for his contempt of court. Id. at ¶ 33. We imposed a
one-year suspension with six months stayed on the condition that he engage in no
further misconduct. Id. at ¶ 46.
        {¶ 24} We agree with the board that Haven’s conduct violated Prof.Cond.R.
8.4(d) and 8.4(h), and that Strauss, West, Howard, and Bailey and Bailey are
instructive regarding the appropriate sanction in this case. Haven’s misconduct was




                                            8
                                January Term, 2024




egregious, but his actions did not adversely affect clients or involve acts of
dishonesty. Instead, his misconduct calls into question his fitness to practice law.
As in Strauss, West, and Howard, the reckless and dangerous actions leading up to
Haven’s OVI and firearm charges put officers in danger. Haven’s firearm violation
created a more dangerous situation than that in Strauss, which is why a sanction
more severe than a fully stayed one-year suspension is warranted here. However,
unlike West and Howard, Haven did not brandish or discharge a firearm during his
standoff with law-enforcement officers, nor was his standoff premised on threats to
shoot them; rather, Haven was telling officers to shoot him. Therefore, Haven’s
misconduct warrants a sanction less severe than West’s and Howard’s, while his
mental-health crisis leading up to the standoff requires strict conditions on his
reinstatement.
       {¶ 25} As for Haven’s misconduct during his divorce and disciplinary
hearings, we find that his actions were less egregious than the attorney’s
misconduct in Bailey and Bailey. Haven’s disruptions were not intentional like
Bailey’s but, rather, were caused by Haven’s ongoing mental-health crisis. We
therefore find that the reinstatement conditions that the board proposed are
appropriate to address these aspects of his misconduct. See Cincinnati Bar Assn. v.
Ludwig, 

 (requiring an attorney receiving a term suspension
to complete the reinstatement process provided by Gov.Bar R. V(25) for attorneys
who receive indefinite suspensions when the attorney was mentally unfit to practice
law). Therefore, and giving due consideration to the sanctions imposed in Strauss,
West, and Howard, we agree with the board that a one-year suspension, with
conditions on Haven’s reinstatement, is the appropriate sanction for his misconduct.
We conclude that this sanction will adequately protect the public. See Disciplinary
Counsel v. Schuman, 

 (“Protecting the public . . . is not strictly
limited to protecting clients from a specific attorney’s potential misconduct.




                                          9
                             SUPREME COURT OF OHIO




Imposing attorney-discipline sanctions also protects the public by demonstrating to
the bar and the public that this type of conduct will not be tolerated.”).
                               III. CONCLUSION
       {¶ 26} Accordingly, Rodney Eugene Haven is suspended from the practice
of law in Ohio for one year, with his reinstatement conditioned on (1) his petitioning
for reinstatement under Gov.Bar R. V(25), (2) his completion of the intervention-
in-lieu-of-conviction program in his improper-handling case or any sanction
imposed by the court if he fails to complete the program, (3) his having no pending
criminal matters or any form of community-control sanction deriving from his
current, or any future, criminal case(s), (4) his completion of three hours of CLE
focused on alcoholism, substance abuse, or mental-health issues, in addition to the
requirements of Gov.Bar R. X, (5) his completion of an OLAP evaluation and
compliance with any resulting treatment recommendations, and (6) his providing
documentation from a qualified healthcare professional, selected or approved by
relator, (a) certifying that Haven does not suffer from a mental or substance-use
disorder that would impair his ability to practice law and (b) opining that Haven is
able to return to the competent, ethical, and professional practice of law. Costs are
taxed to Haven.
                                                              Judgment accordingly.
                               __________________
       Joseph M. Caligiuri, Disciplinary Counsel, and Matthew A. Kanai and Ryan
N. Sander, Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator.
       Rodney Eugene Haven, pro se.
                               __________________




                                          10