LORAIN COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION v. ROBINSON.
No. 2024-0169
Supreme Court of Ohio
May 2, 2024
Slip Opinion No. 2024-Ohio-1657
Submitted March 12, 2024
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as Lorain Cty. Bar Assn. v. Robinson, Slip Opinion No. 2024-Ohio-1657.]
NOTICE
This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in an advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports. Readers are requested to promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 65 South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographical or other formal errors in the opinion, in order that corrections may be made before the opinion is published.
SLIP OPINION NO. 2024-OHIO-1657
LORAIN COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION v. ROBINSON.
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as Lorain Cty. Bar Assn. v. Robinson, Slip Opinion No. 2024-Ohio-1657.]
Attorneys—Misconduct—Attorney violated Rules of Professional Conduct by abusing illicit drugs for extended period culminating in felony conviction for maintaining drug premises and by failing to self-report felony conviction—Indefinite suspension with credit for time served under interim felony suspension.
(No. 2024-0169—Submitted March 12, 2024—Decided May 2, 2024.
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Professional Conduct of the Supreme Court, No. 2023-005.
Per Curiam.
{¶ 1} Respondent, James Terry Robinson, of Elyria, Ohio, Attorney Registration No. 0068785, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1997.
{¶ 2} On January 29, 2009, this court indefinitely suspended Robinson in a default disciplinary proceeding for neglecting several bankruptcy matters, misrepresenting the status of those cases, and intentionally causing prejudice to his clients. Lorain Cty. Bar Assn. v. Robinson, 121 Ohio St.3d 24, 2009-Ohio-262, 901 N.E.2d 783. In January 2023, we imposed a second suspension on Robinson—an interim felony suspension—based on his April 2022 conviction for maintaining a drug premises in violation of
{¶ 3} In a March 2023 complaint, relator, Lorain County Bar Association, alleged that Robinson had failed to self-report his felony conviction to attorney-discipline authorities and that his serious substance-abuse issues adversely reflect on his fitness to practice law.
{¶ 4} The parties submitted stipulations of fact, misconduct, and aggravating and mitigating factors. Robinson did not object to the five exhibits submitted by relator. The matter proceeded to a hearing before a three-member panel of the Board of Professional Conduct. Based on the parties’ stipulations and Robinson‘s testimony, the panel found by clear and convincing evidence that Robinson had committed the charged misconduct, and it recommended that he be indefinitely suspended from the practice of law with credit for the time served under his interim felony suspension imposed on January 13, 2023. In addition, the panel recommended that certain conditions related to Robinson‘s substance-abuse recovery be placed on his reinstatement to the profession.
{¶ 5} The board adopted the panel‘s report and recommendation. The parties filed a joint waiver of objections to the board‘s findings and recommendations and jointly recommended that the court adopt the board‘s report. See
MISCONDUCT
{¶ 6} In December 2022, Robinson informed relator of his intent to seek reinstatement from his 2009 indefinite suspension, and he provided relator with a draft of the petition for reinstatement he intended to file with this court. In that document, Robinson disclosed for the first time that he had been convicted of a felony drug offense in April 2022. He also included statements and documents that were meant to demonstrate his good behavior following his conviction—namely, that he had stopped using drugs, completed inpatient and outpatient substance-abuse treatment programs, and complied with the terms of his criminal probation.
{¶ 7} In 2020, a federal grand jury in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio indicted Robinson in case No. 1:20CR355-006 in connection with a conspiracy to possess and distribute crack cocaine between January 2018 and July 2020. Robinson faced an additional charge related to his drug use in case No. 21CR819-001. Robinson‘s November 2021 plea agreement demonstrates that between January 2018 and July 2020, he ordered crack cocaine, a Schedule I controlled substance, from a person who made weekly deliveries to his Elyria home and that he maintained between 22.4 and 28 grams of crack cocaine for use at the premises.
{¶ 8} Robinson pleaded guilty in case No. 1:21CR819-001 to a single count of maintaining a drug premises in violation of
{¶ 9} Robinson‘s testimony before the panel in this disciplinary case demonstrates that his conviction followed an extensive investigation into a group of people who were manufacturing and distributing drugs, specifically crack cocaine. During that investigation, a search warrant was executed on Robinson‘s home. In this disciplinary
{¶ 10} At his disciplinary hearing, Robinson testified that after having experienced a “raid” on his home by federal-law-enforcement officers that disrupted his wife and family, he stopped using crack cocaine. As part of his criminal probation, he completed inpatient and outpatient substance-abuse treatment programs and submitted to numerous drug tests, all of which were clean. Robinson testified that he continues to participate in two Narcotics Anonymous groups and that he attends an additional support-group meeting conducted by the Ohio Lawyers Assistance Program (“OLAP“). He entered into a two-year OLAP contract on February 19, 2023, and at the time of his disciplinary hearing, he was in full compliance with that contract.
{¶ 11} The parties stipulated and the board found by clear and convincing evidence that Robinson violated
{¶ 12}
A certified copy of the entry of conviction of a judicial officer or an attorney of a felony offense shall be transmitted within ten days of the date of the entry by the judge entering the judgment to the director of the Board and to the Office of Disciplinary Counsel or the president, secretary, or chair of the geographically appropriate certified grievance committee.
{¶ 13} Regardless of the judge‘s deadline under that rule, we agree that under
{¶ 14} In addition to that finding of misconduct, the parties stipulated and the board found that Robinson violated
{¶ 15} A hearing panel must determine by clear and convincing evidence that a lawyer has committed misconduct before a sanction may be imposed,
{¶ 16} We find that although not addressed by the board, Robinson‘s extended period of illicit drug use, which culminated with his felony conviction for maintaining a drug premises, falls within the catchall provision of
SANCTION
{¶ 17} When imposing sanctions for attorney misconduct, we consider all relevant factors, including the ethical duties that the attorney violated, the aggravating and mitigating factors listed in
{¶ 18} The parties stipulated that Robinson‘s prior discipline and multiple offenses are aggravating factors in this case. See
{¶ 19} Robinson‘s past substance abuse is obviously and inextricably linked to his misconduct in this case. See
{¶ 20} In determining the appropriate sanction to recommend for Robinson‘s misconduct, the board found Disciplinary Counsel v. Cantrell (“Cantrell II“), 130 Ohio St.3d 46, 2011-Ohio-4554, 955 N.E.2d 950, to be instructive. In December 2009, disciplinary counsel charged Cantrell with professional misconduct related to her conviction on two felony counts of grand theft for illegally obtaining Section 8 housing and a single felony count of possession of cocaine. Id. at ¶ 3-4, 9-10.
{¶ 21} While Cantrell‘s felony-related disciplinary case was pending, we indefinitely suspended her in a separate disciplinary case for engaging in a pattern of misconduct involving the improper use of her client trust account, misappropriating client funds, and knowingly practicing law while her license was inactive. See Disciplinary Counsel v. Cantrell (“Cantrell I“), 125 Ohio St.3d 458, 2010-Ohio-2114, 928 N.E.2d 1100, ¶ 2, 25.
{¶ 22} Approximately 16 months after we indefinitely suspended Cantrell in Cantrell I, we found in the felony-related disciplinary case that Cantrell‘s criminal conduct constituted illegal acts that adversely reflected on her honesty or trustworthiness and on her fitness to practice law. See Cantrell II at ¶ 4-5, 11. The mitigating factors present in Cantrell II included the only mitigating factor that is present in this case. See id. at ¶ 13. But in addition to having a prior disciplinary record and committing multiple offenses like Robinson, Cantrell acted with a dishonest or selfish motive and, after stipulating to all but the appropriate sanction for her misconduct, she failed to appear at the disciplinary hearing. Id. at ¶ 5-6, 15-16. We rejected the board‘s recommendation that Cantrell be permanently disbarred and imposed a second indefinite suspension for the conduct underlying her criminal convictions, ordering her to serve the second suspension consecutively to her first indefinite suspension. Id. at ¶ 17-18.
{¶ 23} Here, citing similarities between this case and Cantrell II, the board concluded that imposing a second indefinite suspension on Robinson would “strike[] the appropriate balance between deterrence and public protection on one hand, and [Robinson‘s] sincere commitment to his sobriety and betterment on the other hand.” The board therefore recommends that Robinson be indefinitely suspended from the practice of law and that he receive credit for the time served under his interim felony suspension imposed on January 13, 2023. Additionally, the board recommends that any future reinstatement to the profession be conditioned on Robinson‘s continued participation in Narcotics Anonymous and compliance with his February 2023 OLAP contract.
{¶ 24} By his own admission, Robinson used illegal drugs for approximately eight years while he was indefinitely suspended from the practice of law for neglecting the bankruptcy matters of four clients, misrepresenting the status of several of those matters, and intentionally causing harm to several of those clients. In this proceeding, however, he has demonstrated his strong commitment to his addiction recovery and compliance with the terms of his criminal probation. Having thoroughly reviewed the record and our caselaw, we agree that the board‘s recommended sanction of an indefinite suspension with credit for the time served under his interim felony suspension and with additional recovery-related conditions on his reinstatement to the practice of law is the appropriate sanction for Robinson‘s misconduct in this case.
CONCLUSION
{¶ 25} Accordingly, James Terry Robinson is indefinitely suspended from the practice of law in Ohio with credit for the time served under the interim felony suspension imposed on January 13, 2023. In addition to the requirements of
Judgment accordingly.
DEWINE, DONNELLY, STEWART, and DETERS, JJ., concur.
KENNEDY, C.J., and FISCHER, J., concur in part and dissent in part and would not award credit for the time served under the interim felony suspension.
BRUNNER, J., not participating.
Dooley, Gembala, McLaughlin & Pecora Co., L.P.A., Matthew A. Dooley, and Michael R. Briach, for relator.
James Terry Robinson, pro se.