Title: Disciplinary Counsel v. Phillabaum

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. Phillabaum, Slip Opinion No. 2015-Ohio-4346.] 
 
 
 
 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-4346 
DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. PHILLABAUM. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as Disciplinary Counsel v. Phillabaum, Slip Opinion No.  
2015-Ohio-4346.] 
Attorneys—Misconduct—Altering indictment to add gun specifications that were 
never presented to grand jury—One-year suspension. 
(No. 2015-0279—Submitted April 14, 2015—Decided October 27, 2015.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Professional Conduct of the Supreme 
Court, No. 2014-021. 
_______________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Jason Richard Phillabaum of Cincinnati, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0072219, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 2000. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
2
{¶ 2} On March 3, 2014, a probable-cause panel of the Board of 
Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline1 certified to the board a two-count 
complaint filed against Phillabaum by relator, disciplinary counsel.  In that 
complaint, relator alleged that while employed as an assistant prosecuting attorney 
in Butler County, Phillabaum had engaged in prosecutorial misconduct by failing 
to disclose exculpatory evidence to a criminal defendant and by signing two 
separate criminal indictments containing charges that he knew had not been 
presented to the grand jury. 
{¶ 3} The parties entered into stipulations of fact and mitigation and 
submitted more than 20 stipulated exhibits.  A panel of the board conducted a 
hearing and issued a report finding that by causing gun specifications that were not 
presented to the grand jury to be included in a criminal indictment, Phillabaum had 
knowingly made a false statement of fact to a tribunal, engaged in dishonesty, fraud, 
deceit, or misrepresentation, and prejudiced the administration of justice—all of 
which adversely reflected on his fitness to practice law.2  Based on that misconduct, 
the panel recommended that Phillabaum be suspended from the practice of law for 
one year with six months stayed on the condition that he engage in no further 
misconduct.  The board adopted the panel’s report in its entirety, and neither party 
has objected. 
{¶ 4} We adopt the board’s findings of fact, misconduct, and aggravating 
and mitigating factors.  But we reject the recommended sanction.  Instead, we 
conclude that a one-year suspension, with no stay, is the appropriate sanction for 
Phillabaum’s misconduct. 
                                                 
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. 
2 The panel also unanimously dismissed the remaining allegations of misconduct, finding that 
Phillabaum’s failure to disclose exculpatory evidence in one criminal matter resulted from a 
misevaluation of the evidence rather than an egregious or willful attempt to thwart the 
administration of justice and that relator had failed to prove alleged violations with respect to a 
second criminal indictment.   
January Term, 2015 
 
3
Misconduct 
{¶ 5} On December 13, 2010, assistant prosecutor Josh Muennich presented 
the case against Tyree Johnson to a Butler County grand jury in Phillabaum’s 
absence.  He instructed the grand jury to vote on charges of aggravated robbery and 
felonious assault, but did not present any evidence on any gun specifications related 
to the crime and did not instruct the jury to vote on any such specifications.  
Phillabaum reviewed the indictment on December 20, 2010, and instructed a legal 
assistant in the prosecutor’s office to add gun specifications to the indictment.  The 
legal assistant told him that the gun specifications had not been included because 
Muennich had not presented them to the grand jury, and for that reason she felt 
uncomfortable adding them to the indictment.  But when Phillabuam insisted, she 
complied.  Muennich refused to sign the indictment containing the gun 
specifications, since he had not presented that evidence to the grand jury, but 
Phillabaum signed it, knowing that it contained a false statement and would be filed 
with the clerk of courts.  After Phillabaum’s conduct came to light, the Butler 
County Prosecutor presented the case to the grand jury a second time and obtained 
a superseding indictment that included the firearm specification. 
{¶ 6} On May 3, 2012, Phillabaum was indicted on two counts of forgery, 
one count of dereliction of duty, two counts of tampering with records, one count 
of interference with civil rights, and one count of using a sham legal process, all 
arising out of his conduct in the Johnson case.  He pleaded guilty to a single count 
of dereliction of duty, a second-degree misdemeanor, and was sentenced to 90 days 
in jail, all suspended on the conditions that he successfully complete one year of 
community control and perform at least 75 hours of community service. 
{¶ 7} The board found that the conduct summarized above violated 
Prof.Cond.R. 3.3(a)(1) (prohibiting a lawyer from knowingly making a false 
statement of fact or law to a tribunal), 8.4(c) (prohibiting a lawyer from engaging 
in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation), 8.4(d) 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
4
(prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct that is prejudicial to the 
administration of justice), and 8.4(h) (prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in 
conduct that adversely reflects on the lawyer’s fitness to practice law).  We adopt 
the board’s findings of fact and misconduct. 
Sanction 
{¶ 8} When imposing sanctions for attorney misconduct, we consider 
relevant factors, including the ethical duties 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.  We also weigh evidence of the aggravating 
and mitigating factors listed in Gov.Bar R. V(13). 
{¶ 9} The parties stipulated that relevant mitigating factors in this case 
include the absence of a prior disciplinary record, Phillabaum’s cooperative attitude 
toward the disciplinary proceedings, and the criminal sanctions imposed for 
Phillabaum’s conduct (with which he has fully complied).  The board adopted these 
stipulations and also found that Phillabaum presented several letters from judges, 
attorneys, and clients attesting to his good reputation in the legal community.  See 
Gov.Bar R. V(13)(C)(1), (4), (5), and (6).  Moreover, the board found that none of 
the aggravating factors enumerated in Gov.Bar R. V(13)(B) are present. 
{¶ 10} Relator recommended that Phillabaum be suspended from the 
practice of law for one year, but Phillabaum argued that a public reprimand or a 
fully stayed suspension was the appropriate sanction for his misconduct.  The board 
considered four cases involving comparable ethical violations and noted that 
sanctions for violations of Prof.Cond.R. 3.3(a)(1), 8.4(c), 8.4(d), and 8.4(h) vary 
widely depending on the nature of the conduct and the applicable aggravating and 
mitigating factors. 
{¶ 11} In Disciplinary Counsel v. Wilson, 142 Ohio St.3d 439, 2014-Ohio-
5487, 32 N.E.3d 426, ¶ 8, 20, we publicly reprimanded an attorney who violated 
Prof.Cond.R. 3.3(a)(1), 8.4(c), and 8.4(d) by signing the name of her 
January Term, 2015 
 
5
granddaughter’s mother to an affidavit, notarizing the document without any 
notation that she had signed the document with the affiant’s authorization, and then 
filed the document in a pending guardianship proceeding.  In Dayton Bar Assn. v. 
Swift, 142 Ohio St.3d 476, 2014-Ohio-4835, 33 N.E.3d 1, we also imposed a two-
year suspension with the second year stayed on conditions on an attorney who 
violated Prof.Cond.R. 3.3(a)(1), 8.4(c), and 8.4(h).  The attorney in Swift engaged 
in a pattern of misconduct involving multiple offenses by failing to maintain 
independent time records and overbilling four counties for court-appointed work 
over a period of several years. And in a case involving violations of Prof.Cond.R. 
8.4(c), (d), and (h), we imposed a two-year suspension with the second year 
conditionally stayed on an attorney who failed to fully disclose his assets in his 
personal bankruptcy filings, testified falsely about his assets in two depositions, and 
blamed his attorneys for his conduct.  See Disciplinary Counsel v. Harmon, 143 
Ohio St.3d 1, 2014-Ohio-4598, 34 N.E.3d 55. Finally, the board noted that in 
Disciplinary Counsel v. Cicero, 143 Ohio St.3d 6, 2014-Ohio-4639, 34 N.E.3d 60, 
we indefinitely suspended an attorney who, in his third disciplinary matter, engaged 
in a pattern of misconduct and acted with a selfish motive when he lied to a judge 
and amended his own speeding charge to a lesser offense without authorization. 
{¶ 12} The board determined that Phillabaum’s knowing alteration of the 
Johnson indictment was more serious than Wilson’s failure to document the 
authorized signing of an affiant’s name, but found that this case did not involve the 
aggravating factors present in Swift, Harmon, or Cicero.  Therefore, the board 
reasoned that a one-year suspension with six months stayed on the condition that 
Phillabaum engage in no further misconduct was the appropriate sanction in this 
case. 
{¶ 13} We reject the board’s recommendation and conclude that a one-year 
suspension is the appropriate sanction in this case.  Accordingly, Jason Richard 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
6
Phillabaum is suspended from the practice of law in Ohio for one year.  Costs are 
taxed to Phillabaum. 
Judgment accordingly. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, KENNEDY, and O’NEILL, 
JJ., concur. 
PFEIFER and FRENCH, JJ., dissent and would impose a suspension of one 
year with six months stayed. 
_________________ 
Scott J. Drexel, Disciplinary Counsel, and Catherine M. Russo, Assistant 
Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. 
Montgomery Rennie Jonson, L.P.A., George D. Jonson, and Lisa M. 
Zaring, for respondent. 
__________________