Case Title: Columbus Bar Assn. v. Stubbs

Citation: 2012-Ohio-5481

Docket Number: 2012-0316

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 
Columbus Bar Assn. v. Stubbs, Slip Opinion No. 2012-Ohio-5481.] 
 
 
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-5481 
COLUMBUS BAR ASSOCIATION v. STUBBS. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets,  
it may be cited as Columbus Bar Assn. v. Stubbs,  
Slip Opinion No. 2012-Ohio-5481.] 
Attorneys—Misconduct—Violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct, 
including practicing law in violation of jurisdictional regulations, 
engaging in conduct that adversely reflects on the lawyer’s fitness to 
practice law, dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation, and failure 
to 
cooperate 
in 
multiple 
disciplinary 
investigations—Permanent 
disbarment. 
(No. 2012-0316—Submitted April 24, 2012—Decided November 29, 2012.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 11-010. 
__________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, SaKeya MonCheree Stubbs of Columbus, Ohio, 
Attorney Registration No. 0071309, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
1999.  On June 21, 2006, we suspended her license for six months, staying the 
suspension on a condition, and placed her on a one-year monitored probation for 
falsifying a document in an attempt to convince the Ohio Bureau of Motor 
Vehicles that she had been properly insured at the time she received a traffic 
citation.  Columbus Bar Assn. v. Stubbs, 109 Ohio St.3d 446, 2006-Ohio-2818, 
848 N.E.2d 843.  In December 2007, and then again in November 2009, we 
imposed attorney-registration suspensions on Stubbs for her failure to register for 
the 2007-2009 and 2009-2011 bienniums.  In re Attorney Registration Suspension 
of Stubbs, 116 Ohio St.3d 1420, 2007-Ohio-6463, 877 N.E.2d 305; In re Attorney 
Registration Suspension of Stubbs, 123 Ohio St.3d 1475, 2009-Ohio-5786, 915 
N.E.2d 1256.  And, on February 15, 2011, in a default proceeding, we indefinitely 
suspended Stubbs from the practice of law for failure to maintain accurate records 
of the funds held in her client trust account, failure to promptly deliver funds that 
a client was entitled to receive, and failure to cooperate in the disciplinary 
process.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Stubbs, 128 Ohio St.3d 344, 2011-Ohio-553, 
944 N.E.2d 225.  That suspension remains in effect. 
{¶ 2} On February 14, 2011, relator, Columbus Bar Association, charged 
Stubbs in a ten-count complaint with numerous violations of the Rules of 
Professional Conduct.  Although the complaint was served on Stubbs by certified 
mail, she did not file an answer, and relator moved for an entry of default.  The 
Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline appointed a master 
commissioner, who found that Stubbs had committed some of the charged 
misconduct and recommended an indefinite suspension, to run consecutively to 
Stubbs’s previous suspension.  The board adopted the master commissioner’s 
findings of fact and misconduct but, as a sanction, recommends permanent 
disbarment.  Other than the one exception noted below, we adopt the board’s 
findings of fact and misconduct, and we permanently disbar Stubbs from the 
practice of law in Ohio. 
January Term, 2012 
3 
 
Misconduct 
Count I—Kacey R. Noel Matter 
{¶ 3} Based on the sworn affidavit of grievant Kacey R. Noel, the board 
found that in early December 2007, Noel, who was accused of writing bad checks, 
gave Stubbs a $500 retainer and a $100 gift card to represent her.  At that time, 
Stubbs’s first attorney-registration suspension was in effect, and she informed 
Noel that she needed the retainer to pay her reinstatement fee.  Despite Stubbs’s 
attempt to work out an agreement with Noel’s creditors, Noel was indicted on 
December 19, 2007. 
{¶ 4} Noel felt that Stubbs failed to adequately represent her and 
requested the return of her money and gift card.  Stubbs refused, and the two 
subsequently exchanged a number of increasingly uncivil voicemail messages.  
Stubbs then filed a criminal complaint against her client with the Columbus city 
attorney, and according to Noel, Stubbs provided the city attorney with recordings 
of Noel’s voicemail messages containing client communications to corroborate 
the allegations.  Noel claims that the city attorney initially charged her with 
telephone harassment, but the charges were later dismissed. 
{¶ 5} The master commissioner and board found that Stubbs’s conduct 
violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.1 (requiring a lawyer to provide competent representation 
to a client), 1.5(a) (prohibiting a lawyer from making an agreement for, charging, 
or collecting an illegal or clearly excessive fee), 1.16(d) (requiring a lawyer 
withdrawing from representation to take steps reasonably practicable to protect a 
client’s interest, including returning all client property to which the client is 
entitled), 1.6(a) (prohibiting a lawyer from revealing confidential client 
information without informed consent), 5.5(a) (prohibiting a lawyer from 
practicing law in a jurisdiction in violation of the regulation of the legal 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
profession in that jurisdiction),1 and 8.4(h) (prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in 
conduct that adversely reflects on the lawyer’s fitness to practice law).  We adopt 
these findings of fact and of misconduct. 
Count IV—Roland Pschibul Matter 
{¶ 6} Based on the sworn affidavit of grievant Roland Pschibul, the 
board found that in May 2009, Stubbs represented Pschibul’s wife in a custody 
matter regarding his minor daughter.  During that representation, Stubbs 
improperly notarized and filed a falsified affidavit.  Specifically, Stubbs filed an 
affidavit purportedly signed by the minor child, but the child did not sign the 
document and was not in Stubbs’s presence when she notarized it.  The master 
commissioner and board found that Stubbs’s conduct violated Prof.Cond.R. 
8.4(h), and we agree. 
{¶ 7} Although relator’s complaint alleged that Stubbs also 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), 8.4(c) (prohibiting 
a lawyer from engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or 
misrepresentation), and 8.4(d) (prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct 
that is prejudicial to the administration of justice), neither the master 
commissioner nor the board made any findings with respect to these allegations.  
Because the board did not address these violations, we dismiss the charges. 
 
 
                                                 
1 In count I of its complaint, as well as in counts VI and VII, relator charged Stubbs with a 
violation of “Rule 5.5(b)  [unauthorized practice of law].”  For all three counts, the master 
commissioner and board determined that Stubbs had engaged in the unauthorized practice of law; 
however, they determined that her conduct violated Prof.Cond.R. 5.5(a), rather than 5.5(b).  From 
the misconduct described, it is clear that relator meant to cite Prof.Cond.R. 5.5(a). We agree with 
the master commissioner and board’s determination that Stubbs’s charged misconduct here—i.e., 
the unauthorized practice of law—violates Prof.Cond.R. 5.5(a).  See, e.g., Disciplinary Counsel v. 
Meehan, 133 Ohio St.3d 51, 2012-Ohio-3894, ¶ 5 (attorney violated Prof.Cond.R. 5.5(a) for 
practicing while under attorney-registration suspension). 
January Term, 2012 
5 
 
Count VI—Patricia Hall Matter 
{¶ 8} Based on the sworn affidavit of grievant Patricia Hall, the board 
found that on November 10, 2010, Hall paid Stubbs a $285 retainer to represent 
her in a divorce case.  Stubbs, however, never filed the divorce case, and 
whenever Hall inquired as to the date on which the action would be filed, Stubbs 
either failed to return her phone calls or gave her a false date.  Although Stubbs 
initially agreed to refund Hall’s money, she never returned it.  The master 
commissioner and board found that Stubbs’s conduct violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.1, 
1.5(a), 1.16(d), and 8.4(h).  We agree. 
{¶ 9} We disagree, however, with the master commissioner and board’s 
finding that sufficient evidence exists to conclude that Stubbs violated 
Prof.Cond.R. 5.5(a) for representing Hall while her license was suspended.  
Stubbs was suspended from the practice of law between November 3, 2009, and 
March 5, 2010, for failure to register.  The master commissioner and board found 
that Stubbs accepted Hall’s retainer during this time period.  While Hall’s 
grievance states that she paid Stubbs on “November 10, 2009,” relator’s 
complaint and Hall’s sworn affidavit state that she hired Stubbs on “November 
10, 2010.”  Accordingly, we find that the sworn evidence in the record does not 
clearly and convincingly show that Stubbs committed the charged misconduct, 
and we therefore dismiss the violation.  We also dismiss relator’s charges for 
violations of Prof.Cond.R. 1.3 (requiring a lawyer to act with reasonable diligence 
in representing a client) and 1.4 (requiring a lawyer to reasonably communicate 
with a client) because the master commissioner and board made no findings with 
respect to these charges. 
Count VII—Adoption Matter 
{¶ 10} Based on the sworn affidavit of grievant Kelly C. Patton, the board 
found that in October 2009, Stubbs filed an adoption petition on behalf of a 
prospective parent in the Franklin County Probate Court.  The matter was 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
 
scheduled for a hearing before Magistrate Patton on December 8, 2009.  As noted 
above, Stubbs’s license was suspended at that time.  Stubbs unsuccessfully 
attempted to continue the hearing, and on the day of the hearing, her client 
appeared in court alone.  After questioning from the magistrate, the client stated 
that she was unaware of Stubbs’s suspension.  Stubbs then appeared and 
proceeded to counsel her client and a representative from Franklin County 
Children Services about the need for a continuance due to a factual matter.  The 
magistrate continued the matter until January 2010, at which time the client 
appeared with new counsel. 
{¶ 11} The master commissioner and board found, and we agree, that 
Stubbs’s conduct violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.1, 1.3, 1.4(a)(3) (requiring a lawyer to 
keep the client reasonably informed about the status of a matter). 5.5(a), 8.4(c), 
and 8.4(h). 
Count VIII—Reana Allen Matter 
{¶ 12} Based on the sworn affidavit of grievant Reana Allen, the board 
found that in September 2009, Allen paid Stubbs an initial retainer of $150 to 
represent her in a divorce action.  Stubbs later informed Allen that she had made 
several court appearances in the case and the trial was set for March 23, 2010.  
Stubbs, however, had not scheduled any hearings or otherwise appeared in the 
case after filing the complaint, and when Allen attempted to reach Stubbs, she did 
not respond.  In addition, Stubbs never informed Allen of her license suspension, 
and Allen was ultimately forced to obtain new counsel.  The master commissioner 
and board found, and we agree, that Stubbs’s conduct violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.1, 
1.3, 1.4(a)(3), 1.5(a), 1.16(d), 5.5(a), and 8.4(h). 
Count X—Failure to Cooperate 
{¶ 13} Relator charged Stubbs with failure to cooperate in eight 
disciplinary investigations.  For each investigation, relator submitted sworn 
testimony demonstrating that it had mailed to Stubbs a copy of each grievance, 
January Term, 2012 
7 
 
along with additional letters of inquiry for each grievance.  Even though Stubbs 
signed for most of the letters, she never submitted a written response as requested.  
In addition, Stubbs signed a receipt accepting relator’s notice of deposition and a 
subpoena requesting documents that were sent by certified mail, but she failed to 
appear for the deposition and did not respond to the request for production of 
documents. 
{¶ 14} Because Stubbs repeatedly ignored relator’s investigative inquiries, 
we agree with the master commissioner and board that Stubbs’s conduct violated 
Prof.Cond.R. 8.1(b) (prohibiting a lawyer from knowingly failing to respond to a 
demand for information by a disciplinary authority during an investigation) and 
Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) (requiring a lawyer to cooperate with a disciplinary 
investigation). 
Remaining Counts 
{¶ 15} Relator did not submit evidence to support Counts II, III, V, and 
IX of its complaint.  We therefore dismiss the allegations in those counts under 
former Gov.Bar. R. V(6)(F)(1)(b), 64 Ohio St.3d XCVII, which requires “[s]worn 
or certified documentary prima facie evidence” in support of a motion for default. 
Sanction 
{¶ 16} When imposing sanctions for attorney misconduct, we consider 
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 
listed in BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B).  Disciplinary Counsel v. Broeren, 115 Ohio 
St.3d 473, 2007-Ohio-5251, 875 N.E.2d 935, ¶ 21.  
{¶ 17} The board found no mitigating factors in this case but found eight 
of the nine aggravating factors listed in BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1), including 
prior disciplinary offenses, dishonest or selfish motive, a pattern of misconduct, 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
8 
 
multiple offenses, lack of cooperation in the disciplinary process, refusal to 
acknowledge the wrongful nature of the conduct, vulnerability of and resulting 
harm to the client, and failure to make restitution.  See BCGD Proc.Reg. 
10(B)(1)(a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (g), (h), and (i). 
{¶ 18} Relator recommended permanent disbarment.  The master 
commissioner found that because Stubbs’s misconduct preceded or overlapped 
the misconduct for which she was indefinitely suspended in Disciplinary Counsel 
v. Stubbs, 128 Ohio St.3d 344, 2011-Ohio-553, 944 N.E.2d 225, the appropriate 
sanction was another indefinite suspension, to run consecutively to the previously 
imposed suspension.  Based on the “pervasiveness” of Stubbs’s misconduct, the 
board disagreed and recommends permanent disbarment. 
{¶ 19} We have previously explained that “ ‘[t]he normal penalty for 
continuing to practice law while under suspension is disbarment.’ ”  Disciplinary 
Counsel v. Sabroff, 123 Ohio St.3d 182, 2009-Ohio-4205, 915 N.E.2d 307, ¶ 21, 
quoting Disciplinary Counsel v. Allison, 98 Ohio St.3d 322, 2003-Ohio-776, 784 
N.E.2d 695, ¶ 12.  Moreover, we have held that “accepting legal fees and then 
failing to carry out the contract for employment is tantamount to theft of client 
funds and is also cause for disbarment, particularly when coupled with neglect, 
history of misconduct, and other disciplinary infractions.”  Disciplinary Counsel 
v. Frazier, 110 Ohio St.3d 288, 2006-Ohio-4481, 853 N.E.2d 295, ¶ 54, citing 
Columbus Bar Assn. v. Moushey, 104 Ohio St.3d 427, 2004-Ohio-6897, 819 
N.E.2d 112, ¶ 16; see also Disciplinary Counsel v. Henry, 127 Ohio St.3d 398, 
2010-Ohio-6206, 939 N.E.2d 1255, ¶ 33 (“respondent’s pattern of neglect and 
failure to perform as promised, followed by his failure to return unearned fees and 
client documents and his complete disregard for the ensuing disciplinary 
proceedings, warrants his permanent disbarment”); Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn. v. 
Cicirella, ___ Ohio St.3d ___, 2012-Ohio-4300, ____ N.E.2d ____, ¶ 12 (an 
attorney was permanently disbarred when she “not only continued to practice law 
January Term, 2012 
9 
 
while under suspension, but also took her client’s money, failed to carry out the 
contract of employment, failed to return her client’s money or records, and failed 
to cooperate in the resulting disciplinary investigation”). 
{¶ 20} Having considered Stubbs’s conduct, the profusion of aggravating 
factors, the absence of any mitigating factors, and our precedent, we conclude that 
the appropriate sanction is permanent disbarment.  Stubbs’s neglect of entrusted 
client matters, her acceptance of client funds without performing the work, her 
attempts to practice law while her license was suspended, her failure to inform 
clients of her license suspension, her dishonesty, her incompetence, and her 
failure to cooperate in the disciplinary process demonstrate that she is no longer 
fit to practice law. 
{¶ 21} Accordingly, SaKeya MonCheree Stubbs is hereby permanently 
disbarred from the practice of law in Ohio.  Costs are taxed to Stubbs. 
Judgment accordingly. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’DONNELL, 
LANZINGER, CUPP, and MCGEE BROWN, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
Jeffrey C. Rogers; Yvonne L. Twiss; and Bruce A. Campbell, Bar 
Counsel, and A. Alysha Clous, Assistant Bar Counsel, for relator. 
______________________