Disciplinary Counsel v. Grigsby
128 Ohio St. 3d 413
| Ohio | 2011Background
- Respondent, Stephanie Gunter Grigsby, admitted to Ohio bar in 1999 and self-reported a 2010 misdemeanor conviction for misuse of a employer’s credit card for personal expenses.
- Misconduct began in August 2006 with use of a corporate card for personal charges; timely payments ceased as finances worsened and employer terminated her in 2009.
- Grand jury indicted two felony counts; on January 28, 2010 she pled guilty to misuse of a credit card (first-degree misdemeanor) and paid a $100 fine and $2,960 restitution.
- Respondent fully paid restitution, fines, and costs and self-reported the conviction on February 1, 2010 to Disciplinary Counsel.
- Stipulated facts and testimony established violations of Prof. Cond. R. 8.4(b), (c), and (h); panel and board accepted stipulations and recommended 18-month suspension with conditions.
- Disciplinary Court adopted the panel’s recommendation, stayed the suspension with supervised monitoring and no further misconduct; costs taxed to respondent.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Grigsby’s acts violated ethical rules | Grigsby violated 8.4(b), (c), (h) through dishonesty and illegal act. | Grigsby argues mitigating factors lessen culpability; acts were isolated with restitution and cooperation. | Yes; violations established under 8.4(b), (c), (h). |
| Appropriate sanction for the misconduct | Relator urged more than minimal discipline based on aggravating factors. | Mitigating evidence supports a lighter sanction. | An 18-month stayed suspension with monitored probation is appropriate. |
| Impact of aggravating and mitigating factors | Dishonest motive and long pattern weigh for discipline. | Lack of prior discipline, timely restitution, cooperation, remorse mitigate. | Factors support a substantial stay rather than immediate suspension. |
| Public protection through supervision | Supervised monitoring ensures ongoing accountability. | Monitoring balances public protection with leniency. | Remain under Gov.Bar R. V(9) supervision for 18 months; if noncompliance, full suspension applies. |
Key Cases Cited
- Akron Bar Assn. v. Carter, 115 Ohio St.3d 18 (2007-Ohio-4262) (two-year suspension with second year stayed based on plea and restitution factors)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Kraemer, 126 Ohio St.3d 163 (2010-Ohio-3300) (two-year suspension with second year stayed for misappropriation context)
- Stark Cty. Bar Assn. v. Buttacavoli, 96 Ohio St.3d 424 (2002-Ohio-4743) (guides factors for evaluating sanctions)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Agopian, 112 Ohio St.3d 103 (2006-Ohio-6510) (emphasizes public protection in disciplinary sanctions)