Case Title: Disciplinary Counsel v. Grubb

Citation: 2015-Ohio-1349

Docket Number: 2014-1391

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2015-04-08T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Grubb, Slip Opinion No. 2015-Ohio-1349, 2015-Ohio-1349.] 
 
 
 
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. 2015-OHIO-1349 
DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. GRUBB. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as Disciplinary Counsel v. Grubb,  
Slip Opinion No. 2015-Ohio-1349.] 
Attorneys—Misconduct—Conviction of misdemeanor count of complicity to 
commit workers’ compensation fraud—Six-month stayed suspension. 
(No. 2014-1391—Submitted January 14, 2015—Decided April 8, 2015.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 2013-073. 
_______________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Natalie Ference Grubb of Medina, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0062596, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1993.  In 
December 2013, relator, disciplinary counsel, charged her with professional 
misconduct after she was convicted of complicity to commit workers’ 
compensation fraud, a first-degree misdemeanor.  Grubb initially denied that her 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
2
conduct was willful or in violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct.  
However, the parties later entered into stipulations of fact and misconduct, and 
Grubb agreed that she had violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(b) (prohibiting a lawyer 
from committing an illegal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty or 
trustworthiness) and 8.4(d) (prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct that is 
prejudicial to the administration of justice).  In addition, relator agreed to dismiss 
the charged violations of Prof.Cond.R. 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).  As a sanction, the parties recommended that 
Grubb serve a six-month suspension, with the entire suspension stayed on the 
condition that she commit no further misconduct. 
{¶ 2} A three-member panel of the Board of Commissioners on 
Grievances and Discipline1 held a hearing, and based on the stipulations, 
documentary evidence, and witness testimony, the panel, and later the board, 
accepted the parties’ stipulations, including the recommended dismissal of the 
charges under Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(c) and 8.4(h).  The panel and board also 
concurred with the recommended sanction.  Upon our review of the record, we 
adopt the board’s findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommended sanction. 
Misconduct 
{¶ 3} Grubb represented Tracie Lytle in workers’ compensation matters 
from 2004 through 2010.  Between February and July 2007, Lytle collected 
temporary-total-disability benefits, as one of her doctors determined that she was 
unable to work.  During that six-month period, however, Grubb also provided 
funds to Lytle.  For example, Grubb reimbursed Lytle for mileage to attend court 
hearings and doctor’s appointments and to take Grubb’s mother out to lunch.  
                                                 
1 Effective January 1, 2015, the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline has been 
renamed the Board of Professional Conduct.  See Gov.Bar R. V(1)(A), 140 Ohio St.3d CII. 
January Term, 2015 
 
3
Additionally, Grubb assisted Lytle in refunding overpayments from the Bureau of 
Workers’ Compensation.  Grubb testified that during this time, Lytle did not have 
enough money to attend hearings or even to pay for food. 
{¶ 4} At some point thereafter, the bureau received an allegation that 
Grubb was improperly employing Lytle while she was collecting temporary-total-
disability benefits, and the bureau commenced an investigation.  Prior to being 
charged with any crime, Grubb entered into a plea agreement with the Ohio 
Attorney General’s office, in which she agreed to plead guilty to complicity to 
commit workers’ compensation fraud, a first-degree misdemeanor.  She also paid 
the bureau $7,709.92 in restitution, which represented the amount of benefits that 
Lytle had collected during the six-month period at issue, and an additional 
$6,731.55 for bureau investigation costs.  On January 28, 2013, Grubb was 
charged with the misdemeanor count in the Franklin County Municipal Court.  
She pled guilty and was convicted on that same day.  The court imposed a $500 
fine. 
{¶ 5} At her disciplinary hearing, Grubb acknowledged that she had 
violated Ohio workers’ compensation law by providing funds to Lytle while she 
was receiving temporary-total-disability benefits.  Grubb further admitted that she 
failed to monitor the time periods in which Lytle was receiving these benefits.  
Based on this conduct, the parties stipulated and the board found that Grubb 
violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(b) and 8.4(d).  We agree with these findings of 
misconduct. 
Sanction 
{¶ 6} When imposing sanctions for attorney misconduct, we consider 
several relevant factors, including the ethical duties that the lawyer violated and 
the sanctions imposed in similar cases.  Stark Cty. Bar Assn. v. Buttacavoli, 96 
Ohio St.3d 424, 2002-Ohio-4743, 775 N.E.2d 818, ¶ 16.  In making a final 
determination, we also weigh evidence of the aggravating and mitigating factors 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
4
listed in BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B).2  Disciplinary Counsel v. Broeren, 115 Ohio 
St.3d 473, 2007-Ohio-5251, 875 N.E.2d 935, ¶ 21. 
{¶ 7} The board found several mitigating factors, including an absence of 
prior discipline, cooperation in the disciplinary process, payment of restitution, 
and evidence of good character and reputation.  BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(a), (c), 
(d), and (e).  We agree that these factors are present here, and we also note that 
Grubb has been subject to criminal prosecution and paid a fine.  See BCGD 
Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(f) (“imposition of other penalties or sanctions” is a mitigating 
factor).  With regard to aggravating factors, the board concluded, and we agree, 
that none of the factors listed in BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1) are applicable. 
{¶ 8} In recommending a stayed six-month suspension, the board cited 
Disciplinary Counsel v. Grigsby, 128 Ohio St.3d 413, 2011-Ohio-1446, 945 
N.E.2d 512, as relevant precedent.  In Grigsby, we found that an attorney violated 
Prof.Cond.R. 8.4.(b), 8.4(c), and 8.4(h) after being convicted of a misdemeanor 
for misusing her employer’s credit card.  In mitigation, the attorney had no 
disciplinary record, promptly paid restitution, and fully cooperated in the 
disciplinary process.  Id. at ¶ 7.  In addition, two aggravating factors were present:  
the attorney had acted with a dishonest or selfish motive and had engaged in a 
pattern of misconduct spanning more than two and one-half years.  Id.  We 
concluded that an 18-month suspension, all stayed on conditions, was the 
appropriate sanction.  Id. at ¶ 10-11. 
{¶ 9} Similar to the attorney in Grigsby, Grubb was convicted of a 
misdemeanor reflecting adversely on her trustworthiness, and in mitigation, she 
also has no prior discipline, made timely restitution, and cooperated in the 
disciplinary process.  Thus, consistent with Grigsby, a fully stayed suspension is 
appropriate here.  But unlike Grigsby, Grubb has not been found in violation of 
                                                 
2 Effective January 1, 2015, the aggravating and mitigating factors previously set forth in BCGD 
Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1) and (2) are codified in Gov.Bar R. V(13), 140 Ohio St.3d CXXIV. 
January Term, 2015 
 
5
Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(c), the rule prohibiting fraudulent or deceitful behavior, and no 
aggravating factors exist in the present matter.  Accordingly, a lesser sanction 
than Grigsby is warranted.  Compare Disciplinary Counsel v. Carroll, 106 Ohio 
St.3d 84, 2005-Ohio-3805, 831 N.E.2d 1000, ¶ 12, 14-15 (stayed six-month 
suspension 
for 
attorney 
convicted 
of 
a 
misdemeanor 
for 
making 
misrepresentations on his timesheets when “significant” mitigating factors were 
present, with no aggravating factors); Columbus Bar Assn. v. Stubbs, 109 Ohio 
St.3d 446, 2006-Ohio-2818, 848 N.E.2d 843 (six-month suspension, stayed on 
conditions, for attorney convicted of a misdemeanor falsification charge when 
several mitigating factors were present with only one aggravating factor). 
Conclusion 
{¶ 10} Having considered Grubb’s misconduct, the mitigating factors, and 
the sanctions imposed in comparable cases, we adopt the board’s recommended 
sanction.  Accordingly, Natalie Ference Grubb is hereby suspended from the 
practice of law in Ohio for six months, with the entire suspension stayed on the 
condition that she commit no further misconduct.  If Grubb fails to comply with 
this condition, the stay will be lifted and she will serve the entire six-month 
suspension.  Costs are taxed to Grubb. 
Judgment accordingly. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, KENNEDY, 
FRENCH, and O’NEILL, JJ., concur. 
_________________________ 
Scott J. Drexel, Disciplinary Counsel, and Donald M. Scheetz, Assistant 
Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. 
Richard C. Alkire Co., L.P.A., and Richard C. Alkire, for respondent. 
_________________________