Case Title: Columbus Bar Assn. v. Stubbs

Citation: 2006-Ohio-2818

Docket Number: 

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2006-06-21T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as Columbus Bar Assn. v. Stubbs, 109 Ohio St.3d 446, 2006-Ohio-2818.] 
 
 
COLUMBUS BAR ASSOCIATION v. STUBBS. 
[Cite as Columbus Bar Assn. v. Stubbs,  
109 Ohio St.3d 446, 2006-Ohio-2818.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Six-month suspension, with entire suspension 
stayed on condition — Illegal conduct involving moral turpitude — 
Conduct prejudicial to administration of justice — Engaging in conduct 
involving fraud, deceit, dishonesty, or misrepresentation. 
(No. 2006-0096 — Submitted March 15, 2006 — Decided June 21, 2006.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 04-083. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, SaKeya MonCheree Stubbs of Columbus, Ohio, 
Attorney Registration No. 0071309, was admitted to the Ohio bar in 1999. 
{¶ 2} On December 6, 2004, relator, Columbus Bar Association, filed a 
complaint charging respondent with professional misconduct.  Respondent filed 
an answer to the complaint, and a panel of the Board of Commissioners on 
Grievances and Discipline held a hearing on the complaint in October 2005.  The 
panel then prepared written findings of fact, conclusions of law, and a 
recommendation, all of which the board adopted. 
Misconduct 
{¶ 3} In August 2002, respondent was cited for a minor traffic offense.  
At the time, she was driving without automobile liability insurance, which led to 
the suspension of her driver’s license. 
{¶ 4} Respondent then falsified a document in June 2003 in an attempt to 
convince the Ohio Bureau of Motor Vehicles that she had been properly insured 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
at the time she received the traffic citation.  That action in turn prompted the 
Columbus City Prosecutor’s office to file a misdemeanor falsification charge 
against her.  When she failed to appear for her trial on the charge in December 
2003, a judge issued a warrant for her arrest.  She eventually contacted the judge 
and the prosecutor in March 2004 to resolve the criminal case. 
{¶ 5} After respondent pleaded guilty to the falsification charge, she was 
ordered to pay a $150 fine by June 1, 2004, or serve five days in jail.  She failed 
to pay the fine or report to the jail by the deadline, however, and another warrant 
was issued for her arrest.  Respondent paid the fine in July 2004, and the arrest 
warrant was withdrawn. 
{¶ 6} The board found that respondent’s actions violated the following 
Disciplinary Rules: DR 1-102(A)(3) (barring illegal conduct involving moral 
turpitude), 1-102(A)(4) (prohibiting conduct involving fraud, deceit, dishonesty, 
or misrepresentation), 1-102(A)(5) (barring conduct that is prejudicial to the 
administration of justice), and 1-102(A)(6) (barring conduct that adversely 
reflects on a lawyer’s fitness to practice law). 
Sanction 
{¶ 7} In recommending a sanction for this misconduct, the board 
considered the aggravating and mitigating factors listed in Section 10 of the Rules 
and Regulations Governing Procedure on Complaints and Hearings Before the 
Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline (“BCGD Proc.Reg.”).  
The one aggravating factor identified by the board was respondent’s commission 
of multiple offenses.  BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(d). 
{¶ 8} The board found several mitigating factors: respondent’s lack of 
any prior disciplinary record, her cooperative attitude during the disciplinary 
process, her good character and reputation, the imposition of other penalties or 
sanctions, a mental disability (depression), and sincere remorse for her actions.  
BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(a), (d), (e), (f), and (g).  Several of respondent’s 
January Term, 2006 
3 
family members died in 2003, and those deaths caused her to feel a profound 
sense of loss and depression, according to the board.  Starting in January 2005, 
respondent sought grief counseling through the Ohio Lawyers Assistance 
Program (“OLAP”), and she is adhering to a contract with that organization as she 
copes with her grief. 
{¶ 9} The parties recommended that respondent be suspended from the 
practice of law in Ohio for six months, with the entire suspension stayed on 
conditions.  The board adopted that recommendation. 
{¶ 10} We agree that respondent violated all of the Disciplinary Rules 
cited in the board’s report, and we agree with the parties’ and the board’s 
recommended sanction. 
{¶ 11} Illegal and dishonest conduct on the part of an attorney is always 
troubling and usually warrants an actual suspension from the practice of law.  See 
Disciplinary Counsel v. Fowerbaugh (1995), 74 Ohio St.3d 187, 191, 658 N.E.2d 
237 (“when an attorney engages in a course of conduct that violates DR 1-
102(A)(4), the attorney will be actually suspended from the practice of law for an 
appropriate period of time”). 
{¶ 12} In this case, however, we acknowledge the various mitigating 
factors noted by the board, and we accept the board’s findings that respondent has 
shown genuine remorse for her actions, has responded well to OLAP’s efforts to 
help her cope with her grief, and is unlikely to commit future misconduct.  In 
similar circumstances, we have imposed stayed suspensions.  See, e.g., 
Disciplinary Counsel v. Carroll, 106 Ohio St.3d 84, 2005-Ohio-3805, 831 N.E.2d 
1000 (a stayed six-month suspension was ordered for an attorney who had 
submitted inaccurate timesheets while working for a state board but had 
cooperated fully with the resulting criminal and disciplinary investigations); 
Disciplinary Counsel v. Markijohn, 99 Ohio St.3d 489, 2003-Ohio-4129, 794 
N.E.2d 24 (attorney who falsely reported contributions to his law firm’s 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
retirement plan violated DR 1-102(A)(4), but his good character, lack of 
disciplinary record, and personal difficulties were sufficiently mitigating to stay 
the ordered six-month suspension); Dayton Bar Assn. v. Kinney (2000), 89 Ohio 
St.3d 77, 728 N.E.2d 1052 (a stayed six-month suspension was ordered for an 
attorney who falsified a document while representing a client but then fully 
admitted the misconduct, which we described as “an isolated incident” that did 
not change the outcome of the representation). 
{¶ 13} Accordingly, respondent is hereby suspended from the practice of 
law in Ohio for six months, with the entire suspension stayed on the condition that 
respondent continue to comply with her OLAP contract and continue to seek and 
comply with all counseling and treatment regimens recommended by OLAP.  If 
respondent violates the condition, the stay will be lifted, and respondent will serve 
the entire term as a period of actual suspension. 
{¶ 14} In addition, respondent is placed on probation for a period of one 
year in accordance with Gov.Bar R. V(6)(B)(4) to ensure that she maintains an 
ethical and competent legal practice.  During the period of probation, 
respondent’s law practice must be monitored by an attorney appointed by relator 
in accordance with Gov.Bar R. V(9). 
{¶ 15} Costs are taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., RESNICK, PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’CONNOR, 
O’DONNELL and LANZINGER, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
 
Denise R. Mathews and Bruce A. Campbell, for relator. 
 
Christensen & Christensen and Kenneth R. Donchatz, for respondent. 
______________________