In the case of Ohio State Bar Association v. Lance T. Mason, it is argued that Lance Mason should not be disbarred due to a felony conviction for assault. In the case, Lance Mason physically assaulted his wife while driving down the highway while his two children were in the vehicle. Mason was convicted of the offense and served time in prison. Hearings were concluded and it was recommended that Mason be disbarred for his felony conviction. His counsel is arguing that instead of disbarment, Mr. Mason should receive an indefinite suspension with time served. Prosecution argues that nothing has been done to prove that Mr. Mason would not commit these same offenses again. If the respondent could provide this assurance, the prosecution would be
…show more content…
The claim, while it was not initially clear, became clearer once after multiple questions from the Judges. Mr. Mason should not be disbarred for a one time incident, but instead should be put on indefinite suspension which should include time served. “Sometimes they don’t state the major claim at all, or they state it so late in an argument that you didn’t’ realize what the person tried to support” (Verlinden, 2005, p.85). The respondent supports his claim with under the grounds that the initial committee report left out information that could have revealed the true character of Mr. Mason. The warrant to the grounds being counselling and reference letters that were not included in the report. The reference letters were a big part of the argument. This was used to support that Mr. Mason was not only a person, but a good influence for his children and had an outstanding reputation in his job. The respondent also included Mason’s voluntary counselling sessions. While Mr. Mason had not been diagnosed with a psychiatric disorder and had not been ordered to do so, he still chose to attend counselling after the incident. It was also stated that Mason remains in counselling today. The respondent made good use of modal qualifiers. On many occasions he uses definitive words that show he is certain Mr. Mason will not have any issues in the future. The rebuttal was clear, that if the committee had written an accurate and …show more content…
They did have a claim. Mr. Mason should be disbarred because no one can prove that an incident like this would not happen again. The grounds were inadequate counselling reports and documentation. The rebuttal was that if the respondent were to have proof that this would not happen again, (a thorough psychiatric evaluation), then they would be open to indefinite suspension but would not be willing to include time served. Both parties could have strengthened their statements by including more points to support the grounds. The respondent was stronger in this area but when he would comment on the character reference letters, he would not go into any more detail about them other than their existence. Both parties also had difficulty answering questions related to their warrants and grounds. They did not seem to have much support for the grounds other than using it as a talking point.
Manner of
The claim, while it was not initially clear, became clearer once after multiple questions from the Judges. Mr. Mason should not be disbarred for a one time incident, but instead should be put on indefinite suspension which should include time served. “Sometimes they don’t state the major claim at all, or they state it so late in an argument that you didn’t’ realize what the person tried to support” (Verlinden, 2005, p.85). The respondent supports his claim with under the grounds that the initial committee report left out information that could have revealed the true character of Mr. Mason. The warrant to the grounds being counselling and reference letters that were not included in the report. The reference letters were a big part of the argument. This was used to support that Mr. Mason was not only a person, but a good influence for his children and had an outstanding reputation in his job. The respondent also included Mason’s voluntary counselling sessions. While Mr. Mason had not been diagnosed with a psychiatric disorder and had not been ordered to do so, he still chose to attend counselling after the incident. It was also stated that Mason remains in counselling today. The respondent made good use of modal qualifiers. On many occasions he uses definitive words that show he is certain Mr. Mason will not have any issues in the future. The rebuttal was clear, that if the committee had written an accurate and …show more content…
They did have a claim. Mr. Mason should be disbarred because no one can prove that an incident like this would not happen again. The grounds were inadequate counselling reports and documentation. The rebuttal was that if the respondent were to have proof that this would not happen again, (a thorough psychiatric evaluation), then they would be open to indefinite suspension but would not be willing to include time served. Both parties could have strengthened their statements by including more points to support the grounds. The respondent was stronger in this area but when he would comment on the character reference letters, he would not go into any more detail about them other than their existence. Both parties also had difficulty answering questions related to their warrants and grounds. They did not seem to have much support for the grounds other than using it as a talking point.
Manner of