Jason C. Grossman, formerly of Worthington, has been indefinitely suspended from practicing law in Ohio based on his conviction for receiving child pornography. Today, in a unanimous decision, the Ohio Supreme Court ruled that Grossman cannot seek reinstatement to the practice of law until he has served his federal prison sentence and probation.

Grossman was admitted to practice law in 2009, and in February 2014, the court suspended his law license on an interim basis when it learned that he had pleaded guilty to one count of receipt of visual depictions of child pornography. The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio sentenced him to five years in prison and five years of supervised probation as well as requiring him to register as a sex offender.

In addition to his conviction, Grossman also admitted that he communicated with an undercover police officer who was posing as the father of an 11-year-old girl. The court found that the two discussed various sex acts involving the girl and that Grossman made plans to meet her.

The Office of Disciplinary Counsel then filed a complaint against Grossman with the court’s Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline (now known as the Board of Professional Conduct) based on the conviction and the admitted attempt to meet the fictitious girl. The board found Grossman’s conduct adversely reflected on his fitness to practice law and, in addition to indefinitely suspending him from the practice of law, ordered that Grossman cannot seek reinstatement until he has completed his term of probation.

In a per curiam opinion, the court considered not only Grossman’s misconduct, but also the sanctions it has placed on other attorneys in similar circumstances. The court found that three cases cited by the board, which imposed indefinite suspensions on attorneys who engaged in various sexually oriented offenses, were instructive.

The court agreed an indefinite suspension not only will protect the public and deter lawyers from engaging in similar wrongdoing, but also will “leave[] open the possibility that the errant attorney may one day be rehabilitated, redeemed, and able to resume the competent, ethical, and professional practice of law.”

2014-2156. Disciplinary Counsel v. Grossman, Slip Opinion No. 2015-Ohio-2340.

Please note: Opinion summaries are prepared by the Office of Public Information for the general public and news media. Opinion summaries are not prepared for every opinion, but only for noteworthy cases. Opinion summaries are not to be considered as official headnotes or syllabi of court opinions. The full text of this and other court opinions are available online.

PDF files may be viewed, printed, and searched using the free Acrobat^® Reader
Acrobat Reader is a trademark of Adobe Systems Incorporated.