The Supreme Court of Ohio today suspended an attorney for two years, with one year stayed, after he tried to conceal the methamphetamine he brought into the Cuyahoga County Justice Center when visiting a jail inmate.

In a per curiam opinion, a divided court imposed the sanction on Eric Norton, a Cleveland Heights lawyer, who was charged with five felony counts in March 2023. The charges included illegal conveyance of drugs into a detention facility and illegal use of a minor in nudity-oriented material based on images found on his cellphone. In December 2023, Norton pleaded guilty to two charges, and three were dismissed. He was granted intervention in lieu of conviction.

Based on ethical rule violations arising from the same facts as his criminal case, a Supreme Court majority found Norton should be suspended for two years, with one year stayed on conditions related to his continued participation in substance abuse treatment. If reinstated to the practice of law, Norton will be required to work under the supervision of a law practice monitor for one year.

Justices R. Patrick DeWine, Joseph T. Deters, and Megan E. Shanahan joined the majority opinion. Sixth District Court of Appeals Judge Thomas J. Osowik, sitting for Justice Jennifer Brunner, also joined the opinion.

In a separate opinion, Chief Justice Sharon L. Kennedy wrote that the majority imposed sanctions based solely on Norton’s commission of drug-related offenses. Because his cellphone had child pornography on it, he should receive an indefinite suspension, she stated.

Justices Patrick F. Fischer and Daniel R. Hawkins joined the chief justice’s opinion.

Lawyer Attempted To Hide Drugs in Bathroom
In December 2022, Norton visited the justice center to meet with a prospective client who was in jail. As Norton went through security, he emptied his pockets into a tray. An officer saw Norton remove a small plastic baggie containing a white substance from the tray and walk into the men’s restroom. Norton exited the restroom within a minute, went through security, and entered the jail.

A sheriff’s deputy searched the restroom and located the baggie underneath a trash can. It was identified as a controlled substance and later determined to be 5.12 grams of methamphetamine. After discovering the baggie contained drugs, the sheriff’s office terminated Norton’s inmate visit and detained him.

Officers seized Norton’s phone as evidence and obtained a warrant the next day to search it. Two illicit images of a female minor were found on the phone. Norton stated he did not know that the images were automatically downloaded onto his phone through an app he used to communicate with his drug dealer. After his criminal case concluded, Norton provided information about the drug dealer to the Cuyahoga County Prosecutor’s Office with the intent to help locate the source of the images.

Norton also told an assistant prosecutor that the drugs he brought into the justice center were for his personal use and not for the purpose of smuggling drugs into the jail.

Charges Lead to Suspension
Based on Norton’s indictment, the Supreme Court imposed an interim remedial suspension in May 2023, preventing him from practicing law. The suspension remained in effect until today.

Norton pleaded guilty to drug possession and possessing criminal tools, while charges of tampering with evidence, conveying drugs into a detention facility, and use of a minor in nudity-oriented material were dismissed. The trial court judge granted intervention in lieu of conviction and required Norton to meet several conditions. Norton was placed under the supervision of the Cuyahoga County Adult Probation Department.

Based on his conviction, the Office of the Disciplinary Counsel filed a complaint against Norton with the Board of Professional Conduct. The parties stipulated, and the board agreed, that Norton committed an illegal act that adversely reflects on his honesty and trustworthiness, and engaged in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law.

The board compared Norton’s misconduct to two cases in which lawyers were sanctioned for rule violations attributed to substance abuse disorders. The board recommended the Court suspend Norton for two years, with one year stayed on three conditions: that he remain in compliance with an Ohio Lawyers Assistance Program (OLAP) contract he entered into in April 2023, submit to random drug and alcohol testing through OLAP, and comply with all court orders related to his criminal case. The board also recommended he receive no credit for the time served under the interim remedial suspension.

Norton objected to the board’s report and recommendation. He charged the board with “mischaracterizing” the images found on his cellphone. He noted the criminal charges related to the issue were dropped in his case, and argued the board used the information to convince the Court to judge his misconduct more harshly than it would have without the finding.

Norton also objected to the failure to grant him credit for the time served under his interim remedial suspension. He maintained that withholding credit for time served would effectively remove him from the practice of law for up to four years, while other attorneys sanctioned for similar misconduct received much less time out of the practice of law.

Supreme Court Considered Appropriate Sanction
Norton was previously disciplined in 2007 when he received a fully stayed six-month suspension for his neglect of two client matters and other violations of the rules governing the professional conduct of Ohio attorneys.

Norton challenged the board’s finding that a forensic analysis of his cellphone revealed two images containing “illegal child abuse material” was “factually unsupported,” and argued that the criminal charge related to those images was dismissed because he “did not affirmatively take any steps to save the images to his phone and was not even aware they had been auto downloaded into an apps folder.” The Court noted Norton stipulated to an Ohio Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force report, which documented the authenticity of the materials. The task force found one photo of a nude female child, and a short video of the same child on Norton’s cellphone.

The opinion noted that although the child-related criminal charge was dismissed, the disciplinary counsel alleged facts related to that charge in its formal disciplinary complaint. The Court stated the issue provides context to the range of charges leveled against Norton and supports the board’s findings that he engaged in illegal acts and conduct that reflect poorly on his fitness to practice law.

The Court also considered Norton’s conduct leading up to his disciplinary hearing. Norton testified he had a drinking problem for years and in 2020, started using meth to help him focus on work and eliminate his interest in alcohol. After his indictment, he entered into the OLAP contract, which required him to refrain from mood-altering substances, including alcohol.

Five days later, he tested positive for meth. He was found to be using meth again in December 2023, a little more than a month after he was granted intervention in lieu of conviction. OLAP suspended his contract in February 2024 for failure to comply with an order to enter inpatient rehabilitation.

Norton later relapsed in March 2024, and again in July 2024. He admitted violating the terms of the court’s intervention program. The judge in his criminal case allowed Norton to continue in the program, but required him to report more frequently to his probation officer and complete an outpatient treatment program.

Norton’s July relapse occurred about a month before his disciplinary hearing.  And two weeks before the hearing, OLAP reported he was not in compliance with his contract. Despite his relapses, Norton successfully completed his intervention program, and the court dismissed the remaining two charges in December 2024.

In rejecting his request for credit for time served, the Court wrote that Norton failed to appreciate the severity of his substance use disorder. That Court noted his OLAP contract was temporarily suspended for noncompliance, and that he misled a counselor into providing a report regarding his recovery by withholding information about his relapses.

“On these facts, we have serious concerns about Norton's ability to achieve and maintain his sobriety,” the Court stated.

The Court stated that attorneys who received credit for time served demonstrated levels of compliance with orders to remain sober and adhere to treatment directives. The Court also stated that, based on its 2024 decision in Disciplinary Counsel v. Hartley, the Court does not have authority to grant time served for an interim remedial suspension. The Court imposed the sanction recommended by the board—a two-year suspension with one year stayed on conditions related to his to his continued participation in substance abuse treatment—and ordered Norton to pay for the costs of the disciplinary proceedings.

Indefinite Suspension Warranted, Chief Justice Maintained
Norton’s misconduct was more egregious than just his commission of drug-related offenses, Chief Justice Kennedy wrote. The Court has consistently imposed an indefinite suspension when an attorney’s misconduct involved child pornography, her opinion stated.

The chief justice explained that she recognized that the child pornography charge was dismissed as part of the plea agreement. Citing the Court’s 2024 Disciplinary Counsel v. Goodman decision, she noted “in disciplining an attorney for misconduct that also constitutes a criminal offense, we are not limited to considering the charges brought for a particular crime; rather, we must also examine the conduct underlying the offense.”

Since the board and the Court fully considered the images found on Norton’s phone while litigating the case, it should be fully considered when determining a sanction, the opinion stated.

“Following this precedent, Norton should be indefinitely suspended from the practice of law based on the combination of his possession of child pornography and his drug-related offenses,” the chief justice wrote.

2024-1723. Disciplinary Counsel v. Norton, Slip Opinion No. 2025-Ohio-5091.

View oral argument video of this case.

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.