Disciplinary Counsel v. Grubb
142 Ohio St. 3d 521
| Ohio | 2015Background
- Natalie Ference Grubb, admitted 1993, represented Tracie Lytle in workers’ compensation matters from 2004–2010.
- Between Feb–Jul 2007 Lytle collected temporary-total-disability benefits; during that period Grubb provided money and reimbursements to Lytle and assisted with refunds to the Bureau of Workers’ Compensation.
- The Bureau investigated after an allegation that Grubb had improperly employed Lytle while Lytle was receiving benefits.
- Grubb pleaded guilty to complicity to commit workers’ compensation fraud (first-degree misdemeanor), paid restitution and investigation costs, and was fined; disciplinary charges followed.
- Grubb stipulated to violations of Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(b) and 8.4(d); charges under 8.4(c) and 8.4(h) were dismissed by relator.
- The Board and the Supreme Court adopted the stipulations and imposed a six-month suspension stayed in full on the condition of no further misconduct; costs taxed to Grubb.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Grubb’s conduct violated professional rules | Grubb’s guilty plea and conduct (providing funds while client on benefits) show an illegal act reflecting adversely on honesty/trustworthiness and prejudicial conduct | Grubb initially denied willfulness; later stipulated but emphasized absence of deceitful intent and mitigating facts | Court accepted stipulation: violations of Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(b) and 8.4(d) proven |
| Effect of criminal conviction on discipline | Conviction supports discipline and demonstrates misconduct warranting suspension | Mitigating factors (no prior discipline, restitution, cooperation) argue for leniency | Conviction and misconduct justify discipline; mitigation reduces severity |
| Appropriate sanction (nature/length of suspension) | Relator recommended six-month suspension stayed on condition of no further misconduct | Grubb urged consideration of mitigation and absence of aggravators for a stayed, lesser sanction | Court imposed six-month suspension, fully stayed on condition of no further misconduct |
Key Cases Cited
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Grigsby, 128 Ohio St.3d 413 (2011) (court imposed a stayed suspension for an attorney convicted of misdemeanor misuse of employer funds; used for sanction comparison)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Carroll, 106 Ohio St.3d 84 (2005) (stayed six-month suspension where significant mitigation and no aggravators were present)
- Columbus Bar Assn. v. Stubbs, 109 Ohio St.3d 446 (2006) (six-month stayed suspension for misdemeanor falsification with mitigating factors)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Broeren, 115 Ohio St.3d 473 (2007) (discusses weighing aggravating and mitigating factors under disciplinary procedure)