Case Title: Lorain Cty. Bar Assn. v. Robinson

Citation: 2024-Ohio-1657

Docket Number: 2024-0169

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2024-05-02T00:00:00Z

Document:
[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. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
2 
{¶ 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 21 U.S.C. 856(A)(1).  In re Robinson, 172 Ohio St.3d 
1204, 2023-Ohio-64, 222 N.E.3d 669.  Those suspensions remain in effect. 
{¶ 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 Gov.Bar R. V(17)(B)(3).  For the reasons that follow, we adopt the board’s 
findings of misconduct and recommended sanction. 
 
 
January Term, 2024 
 
3 
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 21 U.S.C. 856(a)(1), and the 
indictment against him in case No. 1:20CR355-006 was dismissed.  On April 27, 
2022, the district court sentenced Robinson to a three-year term of probation, which 
is scheduled to end on April 26, 2025, and ordered him to pay a special assessment 
of $100. 
{¶ 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 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
4 
home.  In this disciplinary proceeding, Robinson admitted that he purchased and 
used crack cocaine for about eight years prior to the execution of that search warrant 
and that from January 2018 through July 2020, he received weekly deliveries of the 
drug.  He claimed, however, that he did not use the drug every day and that no drugs 
were found during the search of his home. 
{¶ 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 Prof.Cond.R. 8.3(a) (requiring a lawyer to self-
report ethical violations that raise a question about the lawyer’s honesty, 
trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer).  The parties further stipulated and the board 
found that Robinson failed to report his felony conviction within ten days of the 
judgment’s entry. 
{¶ 12} Prof.Cond.R. 8.3(a) does not provide a deadline for an attorney to 
self-report his or her own misconduct.  Rather, Gov.Bar R. V(18)(A)(2) imposes a 
deadline on the judge who enters a judgment of conviction against an attorney to 
make such a report, stating: 
 
A certified copy of the entry of conviction of a judicial 
officer or an attorney of a felony offense shall be transmitted within 
January Term, 2024 
 
5 
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 Prof.Cond.R. 8.3(a), Robinson had a duty to self-report his felony conviction 
and that his failure to do so for nearly eight months after entry of the felony 
conviction raises a question about his honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness to practice 
law.  See, e.g., Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn. v. McElroy, 140 Ohio St.3d 391, 2014-
Ohio-3774, 18 N.E.3d 1191, ¶ 7-8, 14 (attorney’s failure to report his felony 
convictions for forgery and tampering with evidence to a disciplinary body violated 
Prof.Cond.R. 8.3(a)).  Even then, Robinson did not inform relator that his criminal 
conduct raised a question about his honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness to practice 
law.  Instead, he reported his felony conviction as part of a draft petition for 
reinstatement to the practice of law as a means of demonstrating that he had 
complied with his criminal sanctions and was fit to resume the practice of law.  On 
these facts, we adopt the board’s finding that Robinson’s conduct violated 
Prof.Cond.R. 8.3(a). 
{¶ 14} In addition to that finding of misconduct, the parties stipulated and 
the board found that Robinson violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(h) (prohibiting a lawyer 
from engaging in conduct that adversely reflects on the lawyer’s fitness to practice 
law) by abusing narcotics for at least eight of the 14 years preceding his disciplinary 
hearing in this case. 
{¶ 15} A hearing panel must determine by clear and convincing evidence 
that a lawyer has committed misconduct before a sanction may be imposed, 
Gov.Bar R. V(12)(I), and in Disciplinary Counsel v. Bricker, 137 Ohio St.3d 35, 
2013-Ohio-3998, 997 N.E.2d 500, ¶ 21, we explained that in order to find a 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
6 
violation of Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(h), the evidence must demonstrate that either (1) the 
lawyer engaged in misconduct that adversely reflects on the lawyer’s fitness to 
practice law even if the misconduct is not specifically prohibited by another 
disciplinary rule or (2) the conduct giving rise to a specific rule violation is so 
egregious that it warrants an additional finding that it adversely reflects on the 
lawyer’s fitness to practice law. 
{¶ 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 Prof.Cond.R. 
8.4(h).  See, e.g., Disciplinary Counsel v. Landis, 124 Ohio St.3d 508, 2010-Ohio-
927, 924 N.E.2d 361, ¶ 1-2 (attorney’s felony conviction for operating motor 
vehicle while intoxicated adversely reflected on his fitness to practice law, in 
violation of Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(h)).  We therefore adopt the board’s finding that the 
conduct at issue in this case violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(h). 
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 Gov.Bar R. V(13), and the sanctions 
imposed in similar cases. 
{¶ 18} The parties stipulated that Robinson’s prior discipline and multiple 
offenses are aggravating factors in this case.  See Gov.Bar R. V(13)(B)(1) and (4).  
They also stipulated to just one mitigating factor—that Robinson had exhibited a 
cooperative attitude toward the disciplinary proceedings.  See Gov.Bar R. 
V(13)(C)(4).  In addition to those factors, the board found that Robinson had 
presented evidence of his good character and reputation and had other penalties and 
sanctions imposed for his misconduct.  See Gov.Bar R. V(13)(C)(5) and (6).  While 
the board noted that Robinson had not exhibited a dishonest or selfish motive, the 
board does not appear to have attributed any mitigating effect to that fact. 
January Term, 2024 
 
7 
{¶ 19} Robinson’s past substance abuse is obviously and inextricably 
linked to his misconduct in this case.  See Gov.Bar R. (V)(13)(C)(7)(b).  Although 
Robinson presented some evidence that he has been diagnosed with a substance-
use disorder and has successfully completed an approved treatment program, see 
Gov.Bar R. V(13)(C)(7)(a) and (c), he has not presented a prognosis from a 
qualified healthcare professional that he will be able to return to the competent, 
ethical, professional practice of law under specified conditions, see Gov.Bar R. 
V(13)(C)(7)(d).  Consequently, Robinson’s substance-use disorder does not qualify 
as a mitigating factor under Gov.Bar R. V(13)(C)(7).  Nevertheless, this court 
generally tempers the sanctions imposed for attorney misconduct in cases involving 
substance abuse when the respondent has demonstrated a commitment to sobriety.  
See, e.g., Disciplinary Counsel v. Gallagher, 82 Ohio St.3d 51, 53, 693 N.E.2d 
1078 (1998). 
{¶ 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 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
8 
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 
January Term, 2024 
 
9 
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 
Gov.Bar R. V(25), Robinson’s reinstatement to the profession shall be conditioned 
on proof that he has continued to participate in Narcotics Anonymous and has 
complied with his February 2023 OLAP contract.  Costs are taxed to Robinson. 
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. 
_________________