Case Title: Disciplinary Counsel v. Meyer

Citation: 2012-Ohio-5487

Docket Number: 2012-1001

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2012-11-29T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
Disciplinary Counsel v. Meyer, Slip Opinion No. 2012-Ohio-5487.] 
 
 
 
 
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. 2012-OHIO-5487 
DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. MEYER, F.K.A. GEE. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets,  
it may be cited as Disciplinary Counsel v. Meyer,  
Slip Opinion No. 2012-Ohio-5487.] 
Attorney misconduct, including practicing law while under suspension and 
knowingly making false and misleading statements of material fact to 
disciplinary counsel in connection with a disciplinary matter—Eighteen-
month suspension, with six months stayed on condition. 
(No. 2012-1001—Submitted August 22, 2012—Decided November 29, 2012.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 11-084. 
_______________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Rebecca Christine Meyer, f.k.a. Gee,1 Attorney 
Registration No. 0076007, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 2003.  
                                      
1 The respondent’s last name changed from Gee to Meyer in 2004.  Although she then used the 
name Meyer in her dealings with clients and on court filings, she did not notify the Office of 
Attorney Services that her last name had changed until after the formal hearing before the board in 
this case in April 2012. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
2 
She was also admitted to the practice of law in Kentucky.  The Board of 
Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline now recommends that we suspend 
Meyer from the practice of law for 18 months, with six months stayed on 
condition.  We adopt the board’s recommended sanction. 
Background 
{¶ 2} On December 17, 2010, the Supreme Court suspended Meyer from 
the practice of law and sanctioned her in the amount of $750 pursuant to Gov.Bar 
R. X(5)(A)(1) and (4) for failing to complete continuing-legal-education (“CLE”) 
requirements and for failing to pay a prior court-ordered sanction for CLE 
noncompliance.  In re Gee, 127 Ohio St.3d 1467, 2010-Ohio-6302, 938 N.E. 2d 
368.  Meyer subsequently completed the required CLE and paid the sanctions, and 
the court reinstated her to the practice of law on June 14, 2011.  In re Gee, 128 
Ohio St.3d 1521, 2011-Ohio-2877, 948 N.E.2d 963. 
{¶ 3} On October 10, 2011, relator, disciplinary counsel, filed a three-
count complaint alleging that Meyer had violated the Ohio Rules of Professional 
Conduct by practicing law while under suspension, making false and misleading 
statements in a letter to disciplinary counsel, and failing to update the Supreme 
Court’s Office of Attorney Services with the name she was using professionally in 
her practice. 
{¶ 4} Following a hearing on April 30, 2012, a panel of the Board of 
Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline recommended that Meyer be 
suspended from the practice of law for 18 months, with 12 months stayed on the 
condition that she comply with her contract with Ohio Lawyers Assistance 
Program (“OLAP”). 
{¶ 5} On June 5, 2012, we issued an order of reciprocal discipline, 
Disciplinary Counsel v. Gee, 132 Ohio St.3d 1229, 2012-Ohio-2754, 971 N.E.2d 
952, after notification that in March 2012, the Supreme Court of Kentucky had 
suspended Meyer’s license to practice law in that state for a period of 61 days for 
January Term, 2012 
3 
failure to comply with the state’s continuing-legal-education requirements, 
Kentucky Bar Assn. v. Gee, 363 S.W.3d 343 (Ky.2012). 
{¶ 6} The board considered this matter on June 7, 2012, and it adopted 
the panel’s findings of fact and conclusions of law, but amended the 
recommended sanction.  The board recommended that Meyer be suspended for 18 
months, with six months stayed on the condition that she comply with her OLAP 
contract.  We adopt the board’s recommendation. 
Stipulated Misconduct 
{¶ 7} Regarding Count I of the complaint, the parties stipulated that 
during the period of suspension between December 17, 2010, and her 
reinstatement on June 14, 2011, Meyer continued to practice law.  They further 
stipulated that by continuing to practice law, Meyer violated Prof.Cond.R. 
1.16(a)(1) (requiring a lawyer to withdraw from representation when the 
representation will result in violation of the Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct), 
5.5(a) (prohibiting a lawyer from practicing law in a jurisdiction in violation of 
the regulation of the legal profession in that jurisdiction), 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 reflects on the lawyer’s fitness to practice law). 
{¶ 8} Regarding Count II of the complaint, the parties stipulated that 
Meyer made false and misleading statements in a letter to disciplinary counsel 
including the assertion that she had not engaged in the practice of law during the 
period of suspension.  Meyer admitted that her conduct violated Prof.Cond.R. 
8.1(a) and (b) (prohibiting a lawyer from knowingly making a false statement of 
material fact in connection with a disciplinary matter and failing to disclose a 
material fact in response to a demand for information by a disciplinary authority 
during an investigation) and 8.4(h). 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
4 
{¶ 9} Regarding Count III of the complaint, the parties stipulated that 
since Meyer’s marriage on September 4, 2004, she has used the named “Rebecca 
Gee Meyer” or “Rebecca C. Meyer” for professional purposes.  At the time of the 
hearing in this matter in April 2012, Meyer still had not updated her attorney-
registration information with the Supreme Court as required by Gov.Bar R. VI(D) 
(requiring attorneys to keep the Office of Attorney Services apprised of any 
change in the information on their certificate of registration).  She stipulated that 
her conduct violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(h). 
Sanction 
{¶ 10} The parties stipulated to the mitigating factors of no prior 
disciplinary record and cooperation during the disciplinary proceedings.  BCGD 
Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(a) and (d).  In addition, the panel expressed its belief that 
Meyer’s mental-health issues contributed to cause the misconduct, although she 
had not provided the necessary medical evidence for mitigation purposes. 
{¶ 11} The panel did not identify any aggravating circumstances.  
Nevertheless, the panel noted the seriousness of Meyer’s conduct in failing to stop 
practicing law while her license was suspended. 
{¶ 12} For guidance in determining the appropriate sanction, the panel 
reviewed similar disciplinary cases in which attorneys had continued to practice 
law while under a CLE suspension.  The sanctions in those cases included both 
definite and indefinite suspensions.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Higgins, 117 Ohio 
St.3d 473, 2008-Ohio-1509, 884 N.E.2d 1070; Disciplinary Counsel v. MacLean, 
106 Ohio St.3d 50, 2005-Ohio-3672, 831 N.E.2d 423;  Toledo Bar Assn. v. 
Crandall, 98 Ohio St.3d 444, 2003-Ohio-1637, 786 N.E.2d 872.  An actual 
suspension is necessary in this case based on Meyer’s violations of Prof.Cond.R. 
8.1 and 8.4.  See Disciplinary Counsel v. Fowerbaugh, 74 Ohio St.3d 187, 191, 
658 N.E.2d 237 (1995).  Consequently, the panel recommended that Meyer be 
January Term, 2012 
5 
suspended from the practice of law for 18 months, with 12 months stayed on the 
condition that she comply with her OLAP contract. 
{¶ 13} The board adopted the panel’s findings of fact and conclusions of 
law.  The board rejected the stipulated mitigating factor of no prior discipline, in 
light of this court’s order of reciprocal discipline entered on June 5, 2012, after 
the panel’s hearing.  But the board noted that after the April 2012 hearing, Meyer 
updated her information on file with the court’s Office of Attorney Services.  
Without further discussion, the board recommended a harsher sanction of an 18-
month suspension with only six months stayed on the condition that she comply 
with her OLAP contract. 
{¶ 14} Having independently considered the evidence in this matter, we 
agree with the board’s findings and recommended sanction.  Accordingly, we 
suspend Meyer from the practice of law in Ohio for 18 months, with six months 
stayed on the condition that she comply with her OLAP contract.  Costs are taxed 
to Meyer. 
Judgment accordingly. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’DONNELL, CUPP, 
and MCGEE BROWN, JJ., concur. 
LANZINGER, J., dissents and would impose an 18-month suspension with 
12 months stayed, as recommended by the panel. 
___________________ 
Jonathan E. Coughlan, Disciplinary Counsel, and Lori J. Brown, Chief 
Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. 
Rebecca Christine Meyer, pro se. 
_______________________