Title: Columbus Bar Assn. v. Lindner

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
Columbus Bar Assn. v. Lindner, Slip Opinion No. 2017-Ohio-4362.] 
 
 
 
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. 2017-OHIO-4362 
COLUMBUS BAR ASSOCIATION v. LINDNER. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as Columbus Bar Assn. v. Lindner, Slip Opinion No.  
2017-Ohio-4362.] 
Attorneys—Misconduct—Violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct—
Indefinite suspension. 
(No. 2016-1820—Submitted March 1, 2017—Decided June 21, 2017.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Professional Conduct of the Supreme 
Court, No. 2015-058. 
_______________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Kristina Marie Lindner, of Gahanna, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0088516, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 2011. 
{¶ 2} Relator, Columbus Bar Association, filed an amended complaint 
against Lindner with the Board of Professional Conduct on November 17, 2015.  
The complaint alleged that over a two-year period, Lindner violated the Rules of 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
2
Professional Conduct by engaging in multiple serious criminal violations—
including disorderly conduct arising from a domestic situation, endangering her 
children, leaving the scene of an accident, falsification, and driving while impaired. 
{¶ 3} After a hearing, a three-member panel of the board recommended that 
Lindner be indefinitely suspended from the practice of law based on findings that 
she had engaged in conduct that adversely reflected on her honesty or 
trustworthiness; involved dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation; and 
adversely reflected on her fitness to practice law.  The board adopted the panel’s 
findings and recommended sanction.  There are no objections to the board’s report 
or recommendation.  For the reasons that follow, we indefinitely suspend Lindner 
from the practice of law in Ohio. 
Misconduct 
{¶ 4} From November 2013 through November 2015, Lindner faced 
criminal charges in no fewer than five matters.  In November 2013, she was charged 
with domestic violence and assault for allegedly kicking and striking her husband.  
She eventually pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge of disorderly conduct for 
which she received a suspended jail sentence and one year of community control, 
which required her to stay away from her husband and commit no new offenses.  
But in June 2014, she was once again charged with domestic violence and assault 
for allegedly striking her husband.  She pleaded guilty to another misdemeanor 
charge of disorderly conduct and was sentenced to eight days in jail, which she had 
already served.  Her commission of that offense violated the terms of her 
community control. 
{¶ 5} In July 2014, Lindner was charged with two counts of child 
endangerment for allegedly leaving her young daughters home alone.  The criminal 
complaints alleged that on February 3, 2014, Lindner’s three-year-old daughter was 
found attempting to ride a bicycle on a snow-covered street while the temperature 
was in the twenties and her eight-month-old daughter was found alone and crying 
January Term, 2017 
 
3
uncontrollably in Lindner’s residence.  Lindner pleaded guilty to two counts of 
attempted child endangerment, both second-degree misdemeanors.  She received a 
suspended jail sentence and was ordered to complete two years of community 
control, which required her to commit no new offenses, remain alcohol and drug 
free, and comply with additional conditions established by the Ohio Lawyers 
Assistance Program (“OLAP”). 
{¶ 6} Lindner also faced charges in two separate vehicular matters.  In 
December 2014, she was charged with leaving the scene of an accident and backing 
up unsafely.  She was later charged with falsification for allegedly falsely claiming 
that her car had been stolen several hours before the accident.  And in October 2015, 
she was charged with several additional violations, including operating a vehicle 
while under the influence of alcohol or drugs (“OVI”). 
{¶ 7} Lindner eventually pleaded guilty to leaving the scene of the accident, 
falsification, and OVI—all of which violated the terms of her prior community-
control sanctions—and the remaining charges were dismissed.  Her sentences for 
the three convictions included suspended jail terms and community control, with 
conditions that required her to stay alcohol and drug free, submit to a chemical-
dependency assessment, and successfully complete alcohol/chemical-dependency 
treatment.  According to her testimony at the disciplinary hearing, Lindner 
voluntarily removed herself from the practice of law in January 2016. 
{¶ 8} Based on Lindner’s multiple criminal convictions, the board found 
that she 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(h) (prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct 
that reflects adversely on the lawyer’s fitness to practice law).  Consistent with our 
decision in Disciplinary Counsel v. Bricker, 137 Ohio St.3d 35, 2013-Ohio-3998, 
997 N.E.2d 500, the board expressly determined that the “volume, seriousness, 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
4
recklessness, and repetitiveness of [Lindner’s] unremitting lawless behavior,” 
combined with the existence of outstanding warrants for her arrest at the time of 
the hearing and her failure to take corrective action, were sufficiently egregious to 
prove the Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(h) violation.  We agree with these findings of fact and 
misconduct. 
Sanction 
{¶ 9} When imposing sanctions for attorney misconduct, we consider 
several relevant factors, including the ethical duties the lawyer violated, the 
aggravating and mitigating factors listed in Gov.Bar R. V(13), and the sanctions 
imposed in similar cases. 
{¶ 10} The board found that the applicable aggravating factors were a 
dishonest or selfish motive, a pattern of misconduct, multiple offenses, a lack of 
cooperation in the disciplinary process—as demonstrated by Lindner’s failure to 
appear at a scheduled deposition and her failure to timely appear at the panel 
hearing—and the endangerment of her children.  See Gov.Bar R. V(13)(B)(2), (3), 
(4), (5), and (8). 
 
{¶ 11} At the time of her disciplinary hearing, Lindner did not have a 
permanent residence, a working vehicle or cell phone, or any income other than 
food stamps.  She testified that her husband continued to abuse her “all the time” 
and that he had been convicted of felonious assault for hitting her so hard that he 
fractured her cheekbone.  Despite the ongoing abuse, Lindner was still living 
primarily with her husband at the time of her disciplinary hearing.  When 
questioned about the instances in which she committed violent acts toward her 
husband, she explained that “after taking so much for so long, my fight or flight 
turned into fight.” 
{¶ 12} Lindner testified that she developed an opioid addiction after taking 
medication prescribed for an injury inflicted by her husband.  She has participated 
in drug-treatment programs off and on since 2013 and has continued to take 
January Term, 2017 
 
5
Suboxone (as prescribed by her doctor for her withdrawal symptoms) when she has 
been able to afford it.  But she denied having used any illegal narcotics since she 
entered treatment and claimed that the impairment that led to her OVI conviction 
was caused by her financially driven withdrawal from Suboxone. 
{¶ 13} Although Lindner entered into a five-year OLAP contract in 2013, 
she admitted that she has not complied with its terms, which require regular 
attendance at Narcotics Anonymous meetings.  And while she claimed at her 
disciplinary hearing that she had complied with the requirements of her criminal 
sentences, her testimony reflects that she did not realize that at least one of her 
sentences requires her to “[c]omply [with her] OLAP conditions.”  
{¶ 14} On these facts, the board remarked that “[t]here is no question that 
[Lindner] leads a bleak existence in an intolerably abusive environment” and that 
“there is no denying that” those factors contributed to her misconduct.  Although 
Lindner failed to satisfy all four elements necessary to establish a mental or 
substance-use disorder as a mitigating factor under Gov.Bar R. V(13)(C)(7), the 
board expressed its belief that she is “without a doubt * * * debilitated both by a 
substance abuse addiction and by her dependence on an abusive husband without 
whom she feels she cannot support herself and her children.”1   In addition, we note 
that Lindner has no prior disciplinary record.  See Gov.Bar R. V(13)(C)(1). 
{¶ 15} The parties agreed that Lindner is not ready to resume the practice 
of law, but they expressed different opinions about the time necessary for her 
rehabilitation.  Relator suggested that an indefinite suspension is the appropriate 
sanction for Lindner’s misconduct and will give her ample time to address her 
                                                 
1 For a substance-use disorder to qualify as a mitigating factor pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(13)(C)(7), 
there must be: (a) a diagnosis of a disorder by a qualified health-care or chemical-dependency 
professional, (b) a determination that the disorder is causally related to the misconduct, (c) 
certification of successful completion of an approved treatment program, and (d) a prognosis from 
a qualified health-care or chemical-dependency professional that the attorney will be able to return 
to the competent, ethical, and professional practice of law under specified conditions. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
6
problems and demonstrate her commitment to living a clean, law-abiding life.  In 
contrast, Lindner proposed a two-year suspension with 18 months stayed on 
conditions. 
{¶ 16} The board acknowledged Lindner’s dedication to her clients and the 
absence of any evidence that they were harmed by her conduct.  However, the board 
also recognized that Lindner has clearly lost her way and must take significant and 
difficult corrective actions before she will be able to resume the competent, ethical, 
and professional practice of law.  Based on evidence that Lindner has an ongoing 
opioid addiction, has failed to comply with her treatment plan and OLAP contract 
related to that addiction, “careen[s] from one violent or reckless criminal act to 
another,” and has failed to articulate a coherent plan to change the course of her 
life, the board recommended that we indefinitely suspend Lindner and place certain 
conditions on her reinstatement. 
{¶ 17} In support of that recommendation, the board cited several cases in 
which we indefinitely suspended attorneys whose untreated substance-use 
disorders contributed to their multiple criminal convictions.  See, e.g., Disciplinary 
Counsel v. Hiltbrand, 110 Ohio St.3d 214, 2006-Ohio-4250, 852 N.E.2d 733; Stark 
Cty. Bar Assn. v. Zimmer, 135 Ohio St.3d 462, 2013-Ohio-1962, 989 N.E.2d 51. 
{¶ 18} Having considered Lindner’s conduct, the applicable aggravating 
and mitigating factors, and the sanctions we have imposed for comparable conduct, 
we adopt the board’s findings and recommended sanction.  
{¶ 19} Accordingly, Kristina Marie Lindner is indefinitely suspended from 
the practice of law in Ohio.  In addition to the requirements for reinstatement set 
forth in Gov.Bar R. V(25)(D)(1), Lindner’s reinstatement shall be conditioned upon 
proof that she has (1) completed a domestic-abuse assessment conducted by OLAP 
or an otherwise qualified professional and that she has complied with any 
recommendations resulting from that assessment, (2) complied with an established 
substance-abuse treatment program, and (3) received a prognosis from a qualified 
January Term, 2017 
 
7
health-care professional that she is capable of returning to the competent, ethical, 
and professional practice of law under specified conditions.  Costs are taxed to 
Lindner. 
Judgment accordingly. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and O’DONNELL, KENNEDY, FRENCH, O’NEILL, and 
DEWINE, JJ., concur. 
FISCHER, J., not participating. 
_________________ 
Rourke & Blumenthal, L.L.P., and Robert P. Miller; and Lori J. Brown, Bar 
Counsel, and Alysha Clous, Assistant Bar Counsel, for relator. 
Eric Brehm & Associates and Eric W. Brehm, for respondent. 
_________________