{¶ 1} Respondent, Natalie Ference Grubb of Medina, Ohio, Attorney Registration No. 0062596, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1993. In December 2013, relator, disciplinary counsel, charged her with professional misconduct after she was convicted of complicity to commit workers’ compensation fraud, a first-degree misdemeanor. Grubb initially denied that her conduct was willful or in violation of the Rules of Professional Conduсt. However, the parties later entered into stipulations of fact and misconduct, and Grubb agreed that she had violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(b) (prohibiting а lawyer from committing an illegal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty or trustworthiness) and 8.4(d) (prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduсt that is prejudicial to the administration of justice). In addition, relator agreed to dismiss the charged violations of Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(c) (prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation) and 8.4(h) (prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct that adversely reflеcts on the lawyer’s fitness to practice law). As a sanction, the parties recommended that Grubb serve a six-month suspension, with the entire susрension stayed on the condition that she commit no further misconduct.
{¶ 2} A three-member panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievancеs and Discipline
{¶ 3} Grubb represented Tracie Lytle in workers’ compensation matters from 2004 through 2010. Between February аnd July 2007, Lytle collected temporary-total-disability benefits, as one of her doctors determined that she was unable to work. During that six-month period, however, Grubb also provided funds to Lytle. For example, Grubb reimbursed Lytle for mileage to attend court hearings and doctor’s appointments and to take Grubb’s mother out to lunch. Additionally, Grubb assisted Lytle in refunding overpayments from the Bureau of Workers’ Compensation. Grubb testified that during this time, Lytle did nоt have enough money to attend hearings or even to pay for food.
{114} At some point thereafter, the bureau received an allеgation that Grubb was improperly employing Lytle while she was collecting temporary-total-disability benefits, and the bureau commenced an investigation. Prior to being charged with any crime, Grubb entered into a plea agreement with the Ohio Attorney General’s office, in which she agreed to plead guilty to complicity to commit workers’ compensation fraud, a first-degree misdemeanor. She also paid the bureau $7,709.92 in restitution, which represented the amount of benefits that Lytle had collected during the six-month period at issue, and an additional $6,731.55 for the bureau’s investigation costs. On January 28, 2013, Grubb was charged with the misdemeanor count in the Franklin County Municipal Court. She pled guilty and was convicted on that samе day. The court imposed a $500 fine.
{¶ 5} At her disciplinary hearing, Grubb acknowledged that she had violated Ohio workers’ compensation law by prоviding funds to Lytle while she was receiving temporary-total-disability benefits. Grubb further admitted that she failed to monitor the time periods in which Lytle was recеiving these benefits. Based on this conduct, the parties stipulated and the board found that Grubb violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(b) and 8.4(d). We agree with these findings of misconduct.
Sanction
{¶ 6} When imposing sanctions for attorney misconduct, we consider several relevant factors, including the ethical duties that the lawyer violated and the sanctions imposed in similar cases. Stark Cty. Bar Assn. v. Buttacavoli,
{¶ 8} In recommending a stayed six-month suspension, the board cited Disciplinary Counsel v. Grigsby,
{¶ 9} Similar to the attorney in Grigsby, Grubb was convicted of a misdemean- or reflecting adversely on her trustworthiness, and in mitigation, she also has no prior discipline, made timely restitution, and cooperated in the disciplinary process. Thus, consistent with Grigsby, a fully stayed suspension is appropriate here. But unlike Grigsby, Grubb has not been found in violation of Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(c), the rule prohibiting fraudulent or deceitful behavior, and no aggravating factors exist in the present matter. Accordingly, a lesser sanction than in Grigsby is warranted. Compare Disciplinary Counsel v. Carroll,
Conclusion
{¶ 10} Having considеred Grubb’s misconduct, the mitigating factors, and the sanctions imposed in comparable cases, we adopt the board’s recommendеd sanction. Accordingly, Natalie Ference Grubb is hereby suspended from the practice of law in Ohio for six months, with the entire suspension stayеd on the condition that she commit no further misconduct. If Grubb fails to comply with
Judgment accordingly.
Notes
. Effective January 1, 2015, the Board of Commissioners on Grievаnces and Discipline has been renamed the Board of Professional Conduct. See Gov.Bar R. V(1)(A), 140 Ohio St.3d CII.
. Effective January 1, 2015, the aggravating and mitigating factors previously set forth in BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1) and (2) are codified in Gov.Bar R. V(13), 140 Ohio St.3d CXXIV.