Title: Lorain Cty. Bar Assn. v. Robinson

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
Lorain Cty. Bar Assn. v. Robinson, Slip Opinion No. 2021-Ohio-2123.] 
 
 
 
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. 2021-OHIO-2123 
LORAIN COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION v. ROBINSON. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as Lorain Cty. Bar Assn. v. Robinson, Slip Opinion No.  
2021-Ohio-2123.] 
Attorneys—Misconduct—Violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct—
Overbilling for services performed as court-appointed attorney—Two-
year suspension, with one year stayed on conditions. 
(No. 2021-0228—Submitted March 31, 2021—Decided June 29, 2021.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Professional Conduct of the Supreme 
Court, No. 2020-028. 
______________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Jeanette Michele Robinson, of Elyria, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0060035, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1992.  
On October 13, 2020, we suspended her license on an interim basis after she was 
convicted on a single fifth-degree-felony count of theft.  In re Robinson, 161 Ohio 
St.3d 1272, 2020-Ohio-4868, 164 N.E.3d 499. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
2
{¶ 2} In a June 10, 2020 complaint, relator, Lorain County Bar 
Association, alleged that the conduct underlying Robinson’s theft conviction—
overbilling for the work she performed as a court-appointed attorney—violated 
six professional-conduct rules.  The parties submitted stipulations of fact, 
misconduct, and aggravating and mitigating factors.  They also jointly 
recommended that Robinson be suspended from the practice of law for two years 
with no credit for the time served under her interim felony suspension, be required 
to pay additional restitution beyond that which was ordered in her criminal case, 
serve a two-year period of monitored probation upon her reinstatement, and 
comply with additional restrictions on her future court-appointed work. 
{¶ 3} After a hearing, a three-member panel of the Board of Professional 
Conduct issued a report in which it found that Robinson committed the charged 
misconduct and recommended a sanction that varied from the parties’ agreed 
sanction—namely, that the second year of Robinson’s suspension be conditionally 
stayed.  Further, the panel did not recommend any period of monitored probation 
upon Robinson’s reinstatement. The board adopted the panel’s report in its 
entirety and no objections have been filed. 
{¶ 4} After reviewing the record in this case, we adopt the board’s 
findings of misconduct and recommended sanction. 
Stipulated Facts and Misconduct 
{¶ 5} In 2019, relator began investigating allegations that Robinson had 
overbilled for work she had performed as a court-appointed attorney in the Lorain 
County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, from 2016 through 2019.  In 
August 2020, approximately two months after relator filed the complaint in this 
matter, Robinson pleaded guilty to a single fifth-degree-felony count of theft that 
arose from the same underlying conduct.  On October 7, 2020, the trial court 
sentenced Robinson to three years of community control and ordered her to make 
restitution of $29,319 to Lorain County within one year and abstain from seeking 
January Term, 2021 
 
3
court-appointed legal work for two years.  State v. Robinson, Lorain C.P. No. 
20CR102843 (Oct. 7, 2020). 
{¶ 6} Robinson has admitted that she knowingly overbilled the Ohio 
Public Defender’s Office and Lorain County for court-appointed work that she 
performed from 2016 through 2019.  In her testimony before the hearing panel, 
she admitted that her fraudulent billing statements were submitted to and 
approved by trial judges.  Further, Robinson acknowledged that she made false 
statements to nonjudicial personnel, and the stipulated exhibits establish that her 
fraudulent billing statements were received and certified by the county auditor 
before the county issued payment to her.  She explained that at the time of her 
misconduct, she was experiencing a series of severe medical problems and did not 
have sufficient health insurance to cover the costs of her treatment.  Robinson’s 
medical conditions have since stabilized, and she has obtained full-time 
employment as a condition of her community control. 
{¶ 7} The parties stipulated and the board found that Robinson’s conduct 
violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.5(a) (prohibiting a lawyer from making an agreement for, 
charging, or collecting an illegal or clearly excessive fee), 3.3(a)(1) (prohibiting a 
lawyer from knowingly making a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal), 
4.1(a) (prohibiting a lawyer from knowingly making a false statement of material 
fact or law to a third person), 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). 
{¶ 8} We adopt these findings of misconduct. 
Sanction 
{¶ 9} When imposing sanctions for attorney misconduct, we consider all 
relevant factors, including the ethical duties that the lawyer violated, the 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
4
aggravating and mitigating factors listed in Gov.Bar R. V(13), and the sanctions 
imposed in similar cases. 
{¶ 10} Three aggravating factors are present and were stipulated to by the 
parties: Robinson acted with a dishonest or selfish motive, committed multiple 
offenses, and engaged in a pattern of misconduct.  See Gov.Bar R. V(13)(B)(2), 
(3), and (4).  As for mitigating factors, the parties stipulated that Robinson (1) 
lacks a prior disciplinary record, (2) made a timely, good faith effort to make 
partial restitution by paying the $29,319 in restitution ordered in her criminal 
case, (3) made full and free disclosure to the board and exhibited a cooperative 
attitude toward the criminal and disciplinary processes, (4)  submitted evidence of 
her good character and reputation in the legal community, and (5) had other 
penalties or sanctions imposed for her criminal conduct.  See Gov.Bar R. 
V(13)(C)(1), (3), (4), (5), and (6).  In addition to adopting those mitigating 
factors, the board found that Robinson had fully acknowledged the wrongful 
nature of her misconduct, was “exceedingly remorseful” for her actions, and had 
agreed to pay an additional $50,000 in restitution; she testified that she had 
submitted this money to her counsel prior to her disciplinary hearing. 
{¶ 11} The parties stipulated that Robinson should be suspended for two 
years with no credit for the time served under her interim suspension and be 
required to pay $50,000 in restitution in addition to the $29,319 that she was 
ordered to pay in her criminal case.  They also agreed that she should be required 
to serve a two-year period of monitored probation with additional restrictions on 
her future court-appointed work. 
{¶ 12} In determining the appropriate sanction to recommend for 
Robinson’s misconduct, the board considered Dayton Bar Assn. v. Rogers, 116 
Ohio St.3d 99, 2007-Ohio-5544, 876 N.E.2d 923, and Disciplinary Counsel v. 
Smith, 152 Ohio St.3d 337, 2017-Ohio-9087, 96 N.E.3d 234.  In each of those 
cases, we imposed a two-year suspension on an attorney who, like Robinson, 
January Term, 2021 
 
5
fraudulently billed clients for work that they did not perform.  The board, 
however, distinguished those cases on the ground that both Rogers and Smith 
refused to acknowledge the wrongful nature of their misconduct, while Robinson 
fully acknowledged the wrongfulness of her misconduct and expressed remorse 
for her actions.  See Rogers at ¶ 16; Smith at ¶ 36.  Moreover, Rogers had 
previously been publicly reprimanded for similar misconduct, Rogers at ¶ 1, 18, 
and Smith had failed to make any restitution by the time of his disciplinary 
hearing, Smith at ¶ 36. 
{¶ 13} The board found that Robinson’s conduct was most comparable to 
two other cases cited by the parties: Toledo Bar Assn. v. Stahlbush, 126 Ohio 
St.3d 366, 2010-Ohio-3823, 933 N.E.2d 1091, and Dayton Bar Assn. v. Swift, 142 
Ohio St.3d 476, 2014-Ohio-4835, 33 N.E.3d 1.  Like Robinson, Stahlbush 
submitted false and fraudulent billing statements for court-appointed work.  
Stahlbush stipulated that she billed the county more than 3,400 hours in a single 
year and that she had submitted numerous billing statements in which she averred 
that she had worked 14 to 24 hours in a day.  Stahlbush at ¶ 3.  We found that 
Stahlbush had acted with a dishonest or selfish motive, committed multiple 
offenses, and engaged in a pattern of misconduct.  However, she had no prior 
disciplinary record, submitted positive character references, made an undisclosed 
amount of restitution, and had been denied additional court-appointed work in the 
juvenile court, which had been her primary source of income.  Id. at ¶ 7-8.  We 
suspended Stahlbush from the practice of law for two years, with the second year 
stayed on the conditions that she submit to one year of monitored probation and 
commit no further ethical violations.  Id. at ¶ 17. 
{¶ 14} Swift submitted inflated billing statements for court-appointed 
services in four separate counties over a two-and-a-half-year period.  Like 
Robinson, he was found to have knowingly made false statements of material fact 
to a tribunal and third persons, engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
6
deceit, or misrepresentation, and engaged in conduct that was prejudicial to the 
administration of justice.  Although Swift was not convicted of a crime, we found 
that his misconduct adversely reflected on his fitness to practice law.  Swift at  
¶ 15, 17.  In addition to the same aggravating factors that are present in 
Robinson’s case, Swift failed to make restitution prior to his disciplinary 
hearing—though the parties ultimately stipulated that he owed $50,000 in 
restitution.  Id. at ¶ 17-20. 
{¶ 15} In accord with Stahlbush, we suspended Swift for two years with 
the second year stayed on the conditions that he submit to a one-year period of 
monitored probation and engage in no further misconduct.  We also conditioned 
his reinstatement on his payment of $50,000 in restitution.  Id. at ¶ 23. 
{¶ 16} On the authority of Stahlbush and Swift, the board recommends that 
we suspend Robinson from the practice of law for two years, with no credit for 
the time served under her interim felony suspension but with the second year 
stayed on conditions that include the payment of $50,000 in restitution, in 
addition to the $29,319 already paid as part of her criminal sentence.  Based on 
the panel’s observation of Robinson’s testimony, the panel found and the board 
agreed that it is highly unlikely that Robinson will reoffend in this manner and 
therefore rejected the parties’ stipulation that she be required to serve two years of 
monitored probation.  They did, however, adopt the parties’ recommendations 
that she be required to comply with all orders in her criminal case and that upon 
Robinson’s resumption of court-appointed work, she be required to furnish copies 
of her billing statements for that work to relator for a period of one year. 
{¶ 17} Here, Robinson’s misconduct caused financial harm to the 
taxpayers of Lorain County, and her dishonesty cast a negative light on the legal 
profession as a whole.  After thoroughly reviewing the board’s findings of fact 
and conclusions of law, the applicable aggravating and mitigating factors, and the 
January Term, 2021 
 
7
sanctions we have imposed for comparable misconduct, we believe that the 
board’s recommended sanction is the appropriate sanction in this case. 
Conclusion 
{¶ 18} Accordingly, Jeanette Michele Robinson is suspended from the 
practice of law in Ohio for two years, with no credit for the time served under the 
interim felony suspension imposed on October 13, 2020, but with the second year 
stayed on the conditions that she (1) comply with all orders of the Lorain County 
Court of Common Pleas in case No. 20CR102843, (2) pay $50,000 in restitution 
to Lorain County in addition to the $29,319 in restitution ordered in her criminal 
case, and (3) engage in no further misconduct.  If Robinson fails to comply with 
any condition of the stay, the stay will be lifted and she will serve the full two-
year suspension.  For the first year that Robinson serves as court-appointed 
counsel following her reinstatement to the practice of law, she shall furnish copies 
of all billing statements for her court-appointed work to relator.  Costs are taxed 
to Robinson. 
Judgment accordingly. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and KENNEDY, FISCHER, DEWINE, DONNELLY, STEWART, 
and BRUNNER, JJ., concur. 
_________________ 
O’Toole, McLaughlin, Dooley & Pecora Co., L.P.A., Matthew A. Dooley, 
and Michael R. Briach, for relator. 
Milano Attorneys at Law, Jay Milano, and Kate Pruchnicki, for 
respondent. 
_________________