Case Title: Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Glaser

Citation: 2016-Ohio-3052

Docket Number: 2015-2008

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2016-05-19T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Glaser, Slip Opinion No. 2016-Ohio-3052.] 
 
 
 
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. 2016-OHIO-3052 
CINCINNATI BAR ASSOCIATION v. GLASER. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Glaser, Slip Opinion  
No. 2016-Ohio-3052.] 
Attorneys—Misconduct—Committing an illegal act that reflects adversely on the 
lawyer’s honesty or trustworthiness—Attorney convicted of attempting to 
permit drug use, a misdemeanor—Six-month suspension, stayed on 
conditions. 
(No. 2015-2008—Submitted January 27, 2016—Decided May 19, 2016.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Professional Conduct of the Supreme 
Court, No. 2014-101. 
__________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Angela Joy Glaser of Cincinnati, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0091318, was admitted to the practice of law in 2013.  In 
December 2014, relator, Cincinnati Bar Association, charged her with violating 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
2
Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(b) (prohibiting a lawyer from committing an illegal act that 
reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty or trustworthiness) after she was 
convicted of attempting to permit drug abuse in her home, a first-degree 
misdemeanor.  Based on the parties’ factual stipulations and other evidence 
presented at a hearing before a three-member panel of the Board of Professional 
Conduct, the board found that she engaged in the charged misconduct and 
recommended that we sanction her with a six-month suspension, stayed on 
conditions.  Neither party has filed objections to the board’s report and 
recommendation. 
{¶ 2} Based on our review of the record, we adopt the board’s findings of 
misconduct and agree that its recommended sanction is appropriate in this case. 
Misconduct 
{¶ 3} In 2011, while in law school, Glaser leased a house in Cincinnati.  Her 
minor daughter and then long-time boyfriend, Jackie Sanders, lived in the home 
with her, although Sanders’s name was not on the lease.  Glaser claims that while 
she was in school, her relationship with Sanders began deteriorating: he was not 
permanently employed, he was drinking heavily, and he could be abusive to her at 
times.  In 2013, after graduating from law school, Glaser began working at the 
Hamilton County Public Defender’s Office.  She claims that at that point, she and 
Sanders were essentially living in separate areas of the house and that she planned 
on moving out. 
{¶ 4} However, in January 2014, the police conducted a search of the home 
and found various illegal drugs, two digital scales, and a gun registered in Glaser’s 
name that was stuffed with heroin.  Sanders was later charged with and pled guilty 
to several felonies, including trafficking in and possession of heroin, trafficking in 
cocaine, and having a weapon while under a disability.  He was sentenced to 24 
months in prison.  Glaser was charged with knowingly permitting drug abuse on 
January Term, 2016 
 
3
her premises, a fifth-degree felony, but she ultimately pled guilty to the lesser 
attempt charge.  Following her plea, she was sentenced to pay a $100 fine. 
{¶ 5} At her disciplinary hearing, Glaser acknowledged that she had had 
concerns about the number of people that Sanders was permitting to come into the 
basement area of her home and about whether those individuals were engaging in 
any criminal activity.  But she further testified that she had not known that Sanders 
had cocaine or heroin in the home, that she had not placed the heroin in her gun, 
and that she had never seen the digital scales in her house.  She also testified that 
she has no plans to continue her relationship with Sanders once he is released from 
prison. 
{¶ 6} Based on the hearing evidence and Glaser’s misdemeanor conviction, 
the board found that she had violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(b).  During the hearing, 
relator added a charge under Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(h) (prohibiting a lawyer from 
engaging in conduct that adversely reflects on the lawyer’s fitness to practice law), 
but the panel dismissed the new allegation.  We agree with the board’s finding of a 
Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(b) violation and with the decision to dismiss the new charge. 
Sanction 
{¶ 7} When imposing sanctions for attorney misconduct, we consider 
several relevant factors, including the ethical duties that the lawyer violated, the 
aggravating and mitigating factors listed in Gov.Bar R. V(13), and the sanctions 
imposed in similar cases. 
Aggravating and mitigating factors 
{¶ 8} The board found no aggravating factors in this case.  In mitigation, 
the board recognized that Glaser has no prior discipline, she had a cooperative 
attitude toward the disciplinary process, she self-reported her conduct to 
disciplinary authorities, she cooperated in Sanders’s prosecution, and she submitted 
several character references.  See Gov.Bar R. V(13)(C)(1), (4), and (5).  We concur. 
 
 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
4
Applicable precedent 
{¶ 9} In crafting its recommended sanction, the board primarily analyzed 
two similar cases in which we disciplined attorneys after they were convicted of 
first-degree misdemeanors.  First, in Disciplinary Counsel v. Grigsby, 128 Ohio 
St.3d 413, 2011-Ohio-1446, 945 N.E.2d 512, we imposed a conditionally stayed 
18-month suspension on an attorney who was convicted on a charge of misuse of a 
credit card arising from her unauthorized use of an employer’s corporate credit card 
to cover her personal expenses.  Id. at ¶ 3-4, 11.  Second, in Disciplinary Counsel 
v. Grubb, 142 Ohio St.3d 521, 2015-Ohio-1349, 33 N.E.3d 40, we imposed a stayed 
six-month suspension on an attorney who was convicted on a charge of complicity 
to commit workers’ compensation fraud for providing funds to a client while that 
client was also receiving temporary-total-disability benefits.  Id. at ¶ 3-4, 10.  Both 
cases involved similar mitigating factors, including no prior discipline and full 
cooperation in the disciplinary process.  Grigsby at ¶ 7; Grubb at ¶ 7. 
{¶ 10} We imposed a longer suspension in Grigsby than in Grubb, however, 
because the attorney in Grigsby had also violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(c) (prohibiting 
a lawyer from engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or 
misrepresentation).  Consequently, we also found that the attorney’s dishonesty in 
Grigsby was an aggravating factor.  See Grigsby at ¶ 5, 7.  In contrast, we found no 
dishonest conduct in Grubb, and indeed, there were no aggravating factors in that 
case.  Accordingly, the circumstances in Grubb warranted the lesser six-month 
stayed suspension.  See Grubb at ¶ 8-9. 
{¶ 11} We agree with the board that Grubb is more analogous here.  Glaser 
has not violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(c), there has been no finding of dishonest or 
deceitful conduct, and there are no aggravating factors in this case.  Thus, consistent 
with Grubb, a six-month suspension, stayed on conditions, is appropriate.  See also 
Disciplinary Counsel v. Carroll, 106 Ohio St.3d 84, 2005-Ohio-3805, 831 N.E.2d 
1000, ¶ 6, 9-10, 12, 14-15 (stayed six-month suspension for attorney convicted of 
January Term, 2016 
 
5
a misdemeanor for making misrepresentations on his timesheets when significant 
mitigating factors and no aggravating factors were present). 
Conclusion 
{¶ 12} Having considered Glaser’s misconduct, the mitigating factors, the 
absence of any aggravating factors, and the sanctions imposed in comparable cases, 
we adopt the board’s recommended sanction.  Accordingly, Angela Joy Glaser is 
hereby suspended from the practice of law for six months, with the entire 
suspension stayed on the conditions that she (1) submit to an assessment for 
domestic abuse by a professional affiliated with the Ohio Lawyers Assistance 
Program or by another qualified professional and comply with any 
recommendations made as a result of that assessment, (2) submit to monitoring by 
an attorney due to Glaser’s new-lawyer status, (3) refrain from any further 
misconduct, and (4) pay the costs of these proceedings.  If Glaser fails to comply 
with the conditions of the stay, the stay shall be lifted and she shall serve the full 
six-month suspension.  Costs are taxed to Glaser. 
Judgment accordingly. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, KENNEDY, 
FRENCH, and O’NEILL, JJ., concur. 
_________________ 
Edwin W. Patterson III, General Counsel; and Nancy J. Gill, for relator. 
William B. Strubbe, for respondent. 
_________________