Title: Disciplinary Counsel v. Billingsley

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
Disciplinary Counsel v. Billingsley, Slip Opinion No. 2024-Ohio-222.] 
 
                                                                
 
 
 
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-222 
DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. BILLINGSLEY. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as Disciplinary Counsel v. Billingsley, Slip Opinion No.  
2024-Ohio-222.] 
Attorneys—Misconduct—Violation of Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(c) by notarizing affidavit 
under false jurat that stated affidavit was sworn to and subscribed in 
attorney’s presence when it was not—Public reprimand. 
(No. 2023-0976—Submitted September 12, 2023—Decided January 25, 2024.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Professional Conduct of the Supreme 
Court, No. 2022-051. 
__________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Lon’Cherie’ Darchelle Billingsley, of Cleveland, Ohio, 
Attorney Registration No. 0089450, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 
2012. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
2 
{¶ 2} In a December 2022 complaint, relator, disciplinary counsel, alleged 
that Billingsley engaged in a single act of dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or 
misrepresentation by notarizing an affidavit under a jurat stating that the affidavit 
had been sworn to and subscribed in her presence when it had not.  Billingsley 
waived a probable-cause determination, and the matter proceeded to a hearing 
before a three-member panel of the Board of Professional Conduct.  Following the 
hearing, the panel issued a report finding that Billingsley had committed the 
charged misconduct and recommending that she be publicly reprimanded.  No 
objections have been filed. 
{¶ 3} For the reasons that follow, we adopt the board’s finding of 
misconduct and publicly reprimand Billingsley. 
Misconduct 
{¶ 4} In August 2021, Billingsley’s employer, Tyresha Brown-O’Neal, 
represented Shawnte and Lavelle Gibson, a married couple, in a juvenile-court case 
involving their children, S.H. and G.G.  Shawnte is the mother of both children, 
and Lavelle is the father of G.G. 
{¶ 5} In November 2021, Brown-O’Neal emailed an affidavit to Eddie 
Hanson, the father of S.H., who allegedly was seeking to recant prior statements 
about conditions in the Gibsons’ home and Shawnte’s parenting.  Ten days later, 
Brown-O’Neal informed Billingsley that she had witnessed Hanson sign the 
affidavit electronically during a video conference, and Billingsley agreed to 
notarize Hanson’s purported signature.  The notary jurat on the affidavit stated, 
“Sworn to and subscribed in my presence on this 29th day of November, 2021.”  
Even though she had not in fact witnessed Hanson sign the affidavit, Billingsley 
notarized it.  The board therefore determined that the notary jurat was false. 
{¶ 6} On December 1, 2021, Brown-O’Neal filed the affidavit in support of 
the Gibsons’ emergency motion to terminate the juvenile court’s prior orders 
awarding emergency temporary custody of S.H. and G.G. to Hanson and the 
January Term, 2024 
 
3 
Cuyahoga County Division of Children and Family Services, respectively.  Two 
days later, Billingsley appeared on behalf of the Gibsons at a pretrial hearing before 
Magistrate Eleanore E. Hilow.  Before that hearing commenced, Hanson’s counsel 
informed the magistrate that Brown-O’Neal had contacted Hanson without her 
permission and that she had not been served with a copy of Brown-O’Neal’s 
emergency-custody motion.  Hanson’s counsel further stated that Hanson did not 
recognize the affidavit that was filed with that motion as the affidavit he had signed 
and that Billingsley had not been present when he signed the affidavit that Brown-
O’Neal had sent him. 
{¶ 7} During Billingsley’s disciplinary hearing, Magistrate Hilow testified 
that she had asked Billingsley whether she had notarized Hanson’s affidavit and 
that Billingsley admitted that she had notarized the document without witnessing 
Hanson sign it.  Magistrate Hilow testified that she was under the impression that 
Billingsley had notarized the affidavit on Brown-O’Neal’s instruction.  She stated 
that she struck the emergency motion from the record because it was improperly 
filed and not served on anyone.  She also explained that she struck the affidavit 
from the record because Hanson had said that it was not the document he had 
approved and signed and because Billingsley had admitted that she did not see 
Hanson sign the affidavit. 
{¶ 8} The board found that Billingsley was a zealous advocate on her own 
behalf and made many arguments in her defense at the hearing before the panel.  
Billingsley initially argued that she had notarized the affidavit at the direction of 
her supervising attorney, Brown-O’Neal, but then suggested that the in-person 
requirement for notarization had been suspended because of COVID-19; she also 
claimed that the law regarding the notarization of documents was confusing at that 
time.  At various points during her disciplinary hearing, Billingsley claimed that 
her conduct was not wrong but was careless and that she did not draft the jurat 
stating that the affidavit was signed in her presence.  She suggested that the affidavit 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
4 
was unimportant because it supported only the Gibsons’ request for a hearing.  She 
also suggested that the underlying juvenile-court case was highly emotional and 
that the magistrate was already displeased with her office and her client’s conduct. 
{¶ 9} However, Billingsley eventually admitted her error: 
 
So I own it.  I absolutely own it.  I know now that I did not 
follow the requirements for a remote online notary.  I know that the 
jurat was incorrect.  I know that I signed when Eddie Hanson was 
not physically or virtually present in front of me.  I know that.  And 
that is why I took remedial measures, because I know that what I did 
was wrong, and the reasoning is why I’m here before you so that 
you understand why I did it, but I did do it, your Honors.  I did.  I 
absolutely did. 
 
{¶ 10} As the hearing progressed, Billingsley more forthrightly conceded 
her error and eventually acknowledged that she made a misrepresentation in 
notarizing the affidavit.  Yet she maintained that her conduct was not willful and 
that it did not violate Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(c) (prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in 
conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation).  The board, 
however, found that Billingsley’s placement of her notarial signature on the 
affidavit under the false jurat constituted a willful misrepresentation.  The board 
found by clear and convincing evidence that Billingsley’s conduct violated 
Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(c).  We adopt this finding of misconduct. 
Sanction 
{¶ 11} When imposing sanctions for attorney misconduct, we consider all 
relevant factors, including the ethical duties that the lawyer violated, the 
aggravating and mitigating factors listed in Gov.Bar R. V(13), and the sanctions 
imposed in similar cases. 
January Term, 2024 
 
5 
{¶ 12} The board found that one aggravating factor is present here—
Billingsley caused harm to vulnerable persons because the affidavit was stricken 
from the record and further proceedings were necessary to address the issues raised 
in the emergency motion.  See Gov.Bar R. V(13)(B)(8).  As for mitigating factors, 
the board found that Billingsley had a clean disciplinary record, had not acted with 
a dishonest or selfish motive, had made full and free disclosure to the board and 
exhibited a cooperative attitude toward the proceedings, and had submitted letters 
from two attorneys attesting to her good character.  See Gov.Bar R. V(13)(C)(1), 
(2), (4), and (5).  The board also attributed mitigating effect to the fact that 
Billingsley had attended a class and obtained authorization to serve as an online 
notary public shortly after the magistrate struck the emergency motion and affidavit 
from the record in the underlying juvenile-court case.  See R.C. 147.60(J); Ohio 
Adm.Code 111:6-1-01(O). 
{¶ 13} In determining the appropriate sanction to recommend for 
Billingsley’s misconduct, the board considered two cases that she had cited in 
support of her contention that no sanction was warranted for her misconduct.  In 
Disciplinary Counsel v. Freedman, 110 Ohio St.3d 284, 2006-Ohio-4480, 853 
N.E.2d 291, Freedman asked an associate attorney in his office to notarize his 
signatures on a mortgage and deed.  Id. at ¶ 4.  The associate notarized the 
documents without realizing that the jurat indicated that she was notarizing the 
signatures of Freedman and Freedman’s wife, whose signature lines remained 
blank.  Id.  After the documents had been notarized, Freedman signed his wife’s 
name to them.  Id. at ¶ 5.  At her disciplinary hearing, Billingsley noted that we 
imposed discipline on Freedman, the attorney who sought the improper 
notarization, but did not impose any discipline on the associate attorney who had 
carelessly notarized the documents.  But Freedman is distinguishable from this case 
in that the associate mistakenly believed she was notarizing the signature only of 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
6 
Freedman, who had appeared before her, whereas here, Billingsley knowingly 
notarized the signature of a person who had not appeared before her. 
{¶ 14} In addition, Billingsley noted that in Mahoning Cty. Bar Assn. v. 
Macejko, 166 Ohio St.3d 503, 2022-Ohio-322, 187 N.E.3d 532, we declined to 
discipline an attorney who prenotarized several documents, one of which was later 
signed outside his presence.  Macejko prenotarized estate-planning documents 
before traveling to his clients’ home to review the documents and obtain their 
signatures.  Id. at ¶ 6 (lead opinion).  When he arrived at the clients’ home, Macejko 
was informed that one of them was unwell.  Id. at ¶ 7 (lead opinion).  He left the 
documents for their review with the expectation that they would arrange another 
meeting to sign the documents, but that meeting never occurred and the clients 
eventually obtained new counsel.  Id. at ¶ 7-8 (lead opinion).  Macejko later 
discovered that a durable power of attorney that he had prepared and prenotarized 
for one of the clients was signed outside his presence.  Id. at ¶ 10 (lead opinion).  
Upon being informed of that fact, Macejko self-reported his conduct to the local 
bar association.  Id. (lead opinion). 
{¶ 15} In a split decision, this court dismissed the case against Macejko, 
with three justices finding that he had not willfully engaged in dishonesty, fraud, 
deceit, or misrepresentation by prenotarizing the documents, because he had always 
intended that his clients would execute them in his presence.  Id. at ¶ 22-24 (lead 
opinion); id. at ¶ 25, 27 (Kennedy, J., concurring).  One justice concurred in 
judgment only.  And three dissenting justices would have found that Macejko’s 
conduct violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(c); they would have publicly reprimanded him 
by finding that regardless of his intention, his actions in prenotarizing the 
documents created a risk that the power of attorney could be used for an unlawful 
purpose.  Id. at ¶ 41 (Brunner, J., dissenting). 
{¶ 16} This case is distinguishable from Freedman and Macejko because 
we have found by clear and convincing evidence that Billingsley, knowing that the 
January Term, 2024 
 
7 
affiant had not appeared before her, engaged in a willful misrepresentation of fact 
by placing her notarial signature under a jurat falsely stating that the document had 
been “[s]worn to and subscribed in [her] presence.” 
{¶ 17} At the disciplinary hearing, relator argued that Billingsley should 
receive a fully stayed six-month suspension for her misconduct because she had 
failed to acknowledge the wrongfulness of her conduct.  But the board made no 
such finding.  Instead, the board considered ten cases in which we publicly 
reprimanded attorneys for similar ethical violations resulting from the improper 
notarization of documents. 
{¶ 18} In four of the cases considered by the board, we publicly 
reprimanded attorneys who, like Billingsley, notarized documents that were signed 
outside their presence.  See Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Gottesman, 115 Ohio St.3d 222, 
2007-Ohio-4791, 874 N.E.2d 778, ¶ 1, 3, 7; Mahoning Cty. Bar Assn. v. Melnick, 
107 Ohio St.3d 240, 2005-Ohio-6265, 837 N.E.2d 1203, ¶ 2, 4-6, 17; Columbus 
Bar Assn. v. Dougherty, 105 Ohio St.3d 307, 2005-Ohio-1825, 825 N.E.2d 1094, 
¶ 1, 6-8, 17; Disciplinary Counsel v. Simon, 71 Ohio St.3d 437, 438, 644 N.E.2d 
309 (1994).  In two of those cases, it was later determined that the notarized 
signatures were forgeries.  See Gottesman at ¶ 3; Dougherty at ¶ 8.  And in 
Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Thompson, 129 Ohio St.3d 127, 2011-Ohio-3095, 950 
N.E.2d 550, we publicly reprimanded an attorney who notarized unsigned 
documents at the request of his former law partner.  Id. at ¶ 1, 3, 9. 
{¶ 19} In four of the ten cases considered by the board, we publicly 
reprimanded attorneys who signed the name of another person with that person’s 
authorization and then notarized that signature without indicating that fact on the 
face of the document.  See Disciplinary Counsel v. Moore, 149 Ohio St.3d 509, 
2017-Ohio-883, 75 N.E.3d 1252, ¶ 2-4, 8-9; Disciplinary Counsel v. Wilson, 142 
Ohio St.3d 439, 2014-Ohio-5487, 32 N.E.3d 426, ¶ 2, 4, 7-8, 20; Disciplinary 
Counsel v. Flowers, 139 Ohio St.3d 338, 2014-Ohio-2123, 11 N.E.3d 1174, ¶ 1, 6; 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
8 
Disciplinary Counsel v. Mezacapa, 101 Ohio St.3d 156, 2004-Ohio-302, 803 
N.E.2d 397, ¶ 2, 5.  Like Billingsley, three of those attorneys caused (or allowed) 
the falsely notarized documents to be filed in court.  See Moore at ¶ 4; Wilson at  
¶ 8; Mezacapa at ¶ 2. 
{¶ 20} And in the final case considered by the board, Columbus Bar Assn. 
v. Craig, 131 Ohio St.3d 364, 2012-Ohio-1083, 965 N.E.2d 287,1 an attorney 
forged a client’s signature on an affidavit of transfer on death, notarized the forged 
signature, and filed the document in the county recorder’s office.  Id. at ¶ 1.  Craig 
stipulated that in addition to engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, 
deceit, or misrepresentation, he also violated rules that required him to keep his 
client reasonably informed about the status of the client’s matter and prohibited him 
from making false statements of material fact or law.  Id. at ¶ 3.  Despite those 
additional rule violations, and in the presence of mitigating factors nearly identical 
to those in this case, we adopted the parties’ consent-to-discipline agreement and 
publicly reprimanded Craig for his misconduct.  Id. at ¶ 4-6. 
{¶ 21} The board ultimately concluded that Billingsley’s misconduct in this 
case was no more egregious than the misconduct at issue in those cases.  It therefore 
recommended that we publicly reprimand Billingsley for her misconduct. 
{¶ 22} We have admonished that “lawyers must not take a cavalier attitude 
toward their notary responsibilities” by acknowledging the signatures of people 
who have not appeared before them.  Lorain Cty. Bar Assn. v. Papcke, 81 Ohio 
St.3d 91, 93, 689 N.E.2d 549 (1998).  In this case, we find that Billingsley did not 
forge a signature, know of a forgery, or engage in deceit or other misconduct 
beyond failing to witness a signature, as required of a notary.  See Dougherty, 105 
 
1. The board identifies the case as “Warren Cty. Bar Assn. v. Craig, 131 Ohio St.3d 338, 2012-
Ohio-1083.”  But the cite 2012-Ohio-1083 is assigned to Columbus Bar Assn. v. Craig, 131 Ohio 
St.3d 364, 2012-Ohio-1083, 965 N.E.3d 287, and the parenthetical summary of facts set forth by 
the board matches the facts of that case. 
 
January Term, 2024 
 
9 
Ohio St.3d 307, 2005-Ohio-1825, 825 N.E.2d 1094, at ¶ 15.  Although she offered 
many excuses for her conduct throughout the disciplinary process, Billingsley 
ultimately admitted to the facts of her misconduct and attended a class to learn 
proper notarial procedure where she obtained authorization to serve as an online 
notary public.  On these facts, we agree that a public reprimand is the appropriate 
sanction in this case. 
Conclusion 
{¶ 23} Accordingly, Lon’Cherie’ Darchelle Billingsley is publicly 
reprimanded for the above-described misconduct.  Costs are taxed to Billingsley. 
Judgment accordingly. 
KENNEDY, C.J., and FISCHER, DEWINE, STEWART, and DETERS, JJ., concur. 
DONNELLY and BRUNNER, JJ., not participating. 
_________________ 
Joseph M. Caligiuri, Disciplinary Counsel, and Kelli C. Murphy, Assistant 
Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. 
Lon’Cherie’ Darchelle Billingsley, pro se. 
_________________