Title: Disciplinary Counsel v. Hilburn

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. Hilburn, Slip Opinion No. 2012-Ohio-5528.] 
 
 
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-5528 
DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. HILBURN. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets,  
it may be cited as Disciplinary Counsel v. Hilburn,  
Slip Opinion No. 2012-Ohio-5528.] 
Attorneys—Misconduct—Violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct, 
including failure to act with reasonable diligence in representing a client, 
engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice, and 
failure to cooperate in multiple disciplinary investigations—Eighteen-
month suspension, 12 months stayed on conditions. 
(No. 2012-0678—Submitted June 6, 2012—Decided December 3, 2012.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 11-033. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} On April 11, 2011, relator, Disciplinary Counsel, filed a five-count 
complaint against Regina Lynn Hilburn, Attorney Registration No. 0056085, for 
violating the Rules of Professional Conduct.  Counts I through IV detail violations 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
of the Rules of Professional Conduct in the nature of neglect of client matters, 
lack of responsiveness to client requests for information and documents, and 
conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice.  Additionally, there was one 
charge of dishonest conduct involving misrepresentation to a court.  Court V 
asserted the respondent’s initial failure to cooperate with the disciplinary 
investigation. 
{¶ 2} Relator and Hilburn stipulated to the facts, the violations, and the 
documents relating to each count.  Relator also agreed to withdraw several 
charges of violating certain rules.  Those allegations are dismissed.  Also 
stipulated were aggravating and mitigating factors, along with a proposed 
sanction of 18 months with 12 months stayed on conditions.  The panel found the 
violations and the aggravating and mitigating factors as stipulated and adopted the 
stipulated sanction.  We agree. 
Stipulated Misconduct, Aggravation, and Mitigation 
{¶ 3} Respondent, Regina Hilburn, was admitted to the practice of law in 
1991 and, at the time of the hearing, was a 46-year-old attorney who focused her 
practice on domestic matters. 
1.  Count I:  The Barber matter 
{¶ 4} Beginning in January 2009, Hilburn represented Michelle Barber 
in a parentage and custody matter in the Franklin County Common Pleas Court.  
In February 2009, the opposing party in the case filed a motion for summary 
judgment.  Although Hilburn did file a motion for extension of time, and did 
receive additional time, she never filed a response to the summary-judgment 
motion.  In April 2009, the court granted partial relief, on the parentage issue, 
against Hilburn’s client.  Hilburn moved for leave to file a responsive 
memorandum, was granted leave, and filed the memorandum, but the court 
affirmed its granting of partial summary judgment. 
January Term, 2012 
3 
 
{¶ 5} In August 2009, Hilburn represented Barber during a four-day trial 
on the remaining issue of custody.  The representation continued until the court 
issued its judgment adverse to Barber on October 2, 2009.  On October 22, Barber 
requested an accounting of the work completed on her behalf and a refund of the 
unearned retainer.  Hilburn did not respond to the request. 
{¶ 6} Hilburn stipulated that her conduct in the Barber matter violated 
Prof.Cond.R. 1.3 (a lawyer shall act with reasonable diligence and promptness in 
representing a client) and 1.4(a)(4) (a lawyer shall comply as soon as practicable 
with reasonable requests for information from the client).  The panel and the 
board found by clear and convincing evidence that Hilburn violated the Rules of 
Professional Conduct as stipulated, and we agree. 
2.  Count II:  The Mabry matter 
{¶ 7} Hilburn was hired by the Mabrys in October 2009 to assist them 
with an adoption case in Auglaize County.  At the outset, they paid Hilburn a 
retainer of $3,000.  Hilburn then prepared petitions for adoption for each of Mr. 
Mabry’s two stepchildren, and also obtained his signature, but she did not file the 
petitions. 
{¶ 8} On February 12, 2010, the Mabrys contacted the court regarding 
the adoption cases and inquired about a date for their hearing.  The Mabrys 
informed the clerk that Hilburn had told them of a hearing scheduled for February 
4, 2010, that had been continued because the judge was ill.  The clerk advised the 
Mabrys that no adoption had been filed, attempted unsuccessfully to contact 
Hilburn, and suggested that the Mabrys should do so as well.  At that time, no 
adoption had been filed, no hearing had been scheduled, and the judge was not ill. 
{¶ 9} On February 16, 2010, Hilburn filed the adoption petitions. 
{¶ 10} On February 18, 2010, Judge Spees of the Auglaize County Court 
of Common Pleas, Probate Division, issued an order requiring Hilburn to appear 
on March 8, 2010, and show cause why she should not be held in contempt for her 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
conduct in representing the Mabrys.  At the March 8 hearing, Hilburn stated that 
when she had spoken to the Mabrys about a court hearing, she believed that the 
adoption papers had been filed. Hilburn also explained that she had recently been 
diagnosed as a Type II diabetic and that for some months she had had difficulty 
thinking clearly.  At the conclusion of the hearing, Judge Spees found that 
Hilburn was in contempt and fined her $100.  Additionally, because of serious 
concerns about other clients of Hilburn’s, the judge indicated he would forward 
the transcript of the hearing to the disciplinary counsel’s office.  Hilburn then 
stated to the court: 
 
 
I’m already in contact with OLAP [Ohio Lawyers 
Assistance Program].  You don’t have to send it to Disciplinary 
Counsel.  I’ve already—I realize I made a mistake.  I already 
contacted OLAP and requested their help. 
 
Contrary to Hilburn’s representation, she had not requested help from the Ohio 
Lawyers Assistance Program (“OLAP”) prior to the March 8, 2010 hearing. 
{¶ 11} The adoption of the Mabry stepchildren was finalized on August 
27, 2010, and Hilburn timely paid the $100 fine for contempt of the court. 
{¶ 12} With respect to the Mabry matter, Hilburn agreed that she had 
violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.3, 8.4(c) (a lawyer shall not engage in conduct involving 
dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation), 8.4(d) (a lawyer shall not engage 
in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice), and 8.4(h) (a lawyer 
shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on the lawyer’s fitness to 
practice law).  The panel and the board found by clear and convincing evidence 
that Hilburn violated the Rules of Professional Conduct as stipulated, and we 
agree. 
 
 
January Term, 2012 
5 
 
3.  Count III:  The Issa matter 
{¶ 13} On April 30, 2008, Abdi Issa retained Hilburn to represent him in a 
civil matter arising out of a property dispute.  Issa paid Hilburn $800 as a retainer 
along with $300 for filing fees on May 2.  On July 16, 2008, Hilburn filed a civil 
complaint for conversion, replevin, trespass, and other relief in the Franklin 
County Court of Common Pleas.  The defendants filed an answer and 
counterclaim along with a motion to dismiss on August 21, 2008.  Although 
Hilburn prepared an answer to the counterclaim and a response to the motion to 
dismiss, she failed to file either of them. 
{¶ 14} On October 17, 2008, defendants moved for default against 
Hilburn’s client on the counterclaim.  A hearing on the default motion was set for 
October 21, 2009, but later continued. 
{¶ 15} On January 4, 2010, Hilburn entered into a stipulation with the 
defendants to dismiss the matter.  Hilburn did not inform Issa of the dismissal or 
obtain his authorization to dismiss.  Hilburn failed to respond to numerous 
telephone messages from Issa regarding the case and failed to update Issa on the 
progress of the case. 
{¶ 16} With respect to Issa, Hilburn stipulated to violations of 
Prof.Cond.R. 1.3, 1.4(a)(2) (a lawyer shall reasonably consult with the client 
about the means by which the client’s objectives are to be accomplished), 
1.4(a)(3) (a lawyer shall keep the client reasonably informed about the status of 
the matter), 1.4(a)(4), and 8.4(d).  The panel and the board found by clear and 
convincing evidence that Hilburn violated the Rules of Professional Conduct as 
stipulated, and we agree. 
4.  Count IV:  The Tribune matter 
{¶ 17} On or about August 8, 2007, Jonathan Tribune retained Hilburn to 
represent him in a parentage and custody matter and paid her $1,100 in fees.  On 
November 13, 2007, Hilburn filed a complaint to establish a parent-child 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
 
relationship on Tribune’s behalf in the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas, 
Domestic Relations Division. 
{¶ 18} Hilburn filed an amended complaint on March 6, 2009, and a 
motion for parenting time on March 24, 2009.  On July 21, 2009, Hilburn filed a 
motion for contempt on Tribune’s behalf.  On October 20, 2009, the parties 
resolved the outstanding issues and settled the case, preparing and executing a 
memorandum of agreement that set forth the terms of the settlement and required 
Hilburn to submit an appropriate judgment entry by November 20, 2009.  On 
January 11, 2010, the court dismissed Tribune’s case because Hilburn had failed 
to file a judgment entry or request an extension of time to do so.  The court 
notified Hilburn of the dismissal, but she never informed Tribune that the case 
had been dismissed. 
{¶ 19} From October 2009 through April 2010, when he obtained new 
counsel, Tribune attempted to contact Hilburn about the status of the case.  
Hilburn did not return his calls.  When he obtained new counsel in April 2010, 
Tribune learned for the first time that the case had been dismissed in January 
2010. 
{¶ 20} Hilburn stipulated that her conduct in the Tribune matter violated 
Prof.Cond.R. 1.3, 1.4(a)(4), and 8.4(d).  The panel and the board found by clear 
and convincing evidence that Hilburn violated the Rules of Professional Conduct 
as stipulated, and we agree. 
5.  Count V:  Failure to cooperate 
{¶ 21} From January 11, 2010, through December 1, 2010, the 
disciplinary counsel forwarded six letters of inquiry to Hilburn relating to the 
Barber, Mabry, Issa, or Tribune matters.  Those letters were sent by certified mail 
to the address Hilburn had provided to the Office of Attorney Registration—118 
E. Main Street, Suite 204, Columbus, Ohio 43215.  Although Hilburn received 
each of the letters sent to her, she timely responded only to the first letter 
January Term, 2012 
7 
 
regarding the Barber matter.  The following outline details Hilburn’s lack of 
cooperation with the disciplinary counsel’s investigation: 
 
 April 8, 2010: Disciplinary counsel requested additional 
information relating to Barber’s grievance.  Hilburn provided 
the information only after relator issued a subpoena requiring 
her appearance in disciplinary counsel’s office on June 9, 2010. 
 May 18, 2010:  Disciplinary counsel’s investigator personally 
served on Hilburn a subpoena duces tecum relating to the 
Barber and Mabry matter.  The subpoena required Hilburn’s 
appearance at relator’s office on June 9, 2010.  Hilburn sent a 
facsimile transmission on June 8, 2010, at 7:14 p.m., 
responding to relator’s request for additional information in the 
Barber matter as well as to its letter of inquiry in the Mabry 
matter. 
 June 17, 2010:  Disciplinary counsel wrote to respondent 
requesting additional information arising out of her response to 
the letter of inquiry relating to the Mabry matter.  Respondent 
did not reply to relator’s letter. 
 August 19, 2010:  Disciplinary counsel served on respondent, 
by certified mail, a subpoena duces tecum relating to the Issa 
and Barber matters, which required respondent’s appearance in 
relator’s office on September 16, 2010. 
 On September 15, 2010, Hilburn forwarded, by facsimile, a 
partial response to relator’s letter of inquiry in the Issa matter.  
In her letter, respondent indicated that she was providing her 
OLAP contract, which had been entered into on July 6, 2010, 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
8 
 
and that she was seeking counsel to assist her with relator’s 
investigation.  At that time, counsel for relator spoke with 
respondent and indicated that she would continue the 
deposition for two weeks to allow respondent to obtain 
counsel. 
 September 20, 2010: Disciplinary counsel served a subpoena 
duces tecum by certified mail relating to the Issa and Barber 
matters, which required respondent’s appearance in relator’s 
office on September 30, 2010. 
 September 29, 2010:  Hilburn forwarded, by facsimile, a 
request to continue the September 30 deposition because she 
had not yet obtained counsel to represent her.  Upon receipt of 
respondent’s 
request, counsel for relator spoke with 
respondent, who assured relator that she would provide the 
information relator was requesting by October 29, 2010.  
Despite respondent’s promise, respondent did not provide 
relator any additional information. 
 November 22, 2010:  Disciplinary counsel’s investigator 
personally served a subpoena duces tecum upon Hilburn by 
giving the subpoena to respondent’s roommate at her 
residential address.  The subpoena required respondent’s 
appearance at relator’s office on December 13, 2010. 
 December 10, 2010:  Hilburn again wrote to disciplinary 
counsel, explaining that for financial reasons, she had not yet 
obtained counsel to assist her.  Although respondent indicated a 
willingness to appear on December 13, 2010, disciplinary 
counsel contacted her and advised that the matter would be 
January Term, 2012 
9 
 
continued in order to permit respondent time to obtain counsel.  
Relator advised respondent that her written response to all 
outstanding issues needed to be received by December 31, 
2010; relator did not receive anything from respondent by 
December 31, 2010. 
 January 6, 2011:  Disciplinary counsel requested additional 
information relating to each of his investigations against 
respondent.  The request advised Hilburn of relator’s intent to 
file a formal complaint against her should she not respond to 
the request.  Respondent did not provide the requested 
materials. 
 
{¶ 22} Respondent admits that her conduct as asserted in Count V 
violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.1(b) (a lawyer shall not, upon receiving a demand for 
information from a disciplinary authority, knowingly fail to respond) and Gov.Bar 
R. V(4)(G) (no lawyer shall neglect or refuse to assist or testify in an investigation 
or hearing). 
{¶ 23} The panel and the board found by clear and convincing evidence 
that Hilburn violated the Rules of Professional Conduct and the Rules for the 
Government of the Bar as stipulated, and we agree. 
6.  Stipulated aggravating and mitigating factors 
{¶ 24} The parties stipulated the following aggravating factors exist:   
 
 A pattern of misconduct, see BCGD Proc.Reg. 10 (B)(1)(c). 
 Multiple offenses, see BCGD Proc.Reg. 10 (B)(1)(d). 
 A lack of cooperation in the disciplinary process, see BCGD 
Proc.Reg. 10 (B)(1)(e). 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
10 
 
 
{¶ 25} As for mitigating factors, the parties stipulated the following exist: 
 
 Absence of a prior disciplinary record, see BCGD Proc.Reg. 
10(B)(2)(a). 
 Lack of a selfish or dishonest motive, see BCGD Proc.Reg. 
10(B)(2)(b). 
 Presence of a documented mental disability, see BCGD 
Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(g). 
 
{¶ 26} The subject of Hilburn’s mental disability calls for additional 
discussion.  BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(g) provides that the board may consider a 
“mental disability” as a mitigating factor when the following has been shown: 
 
 
(i) A diagnosis of a chemical dependency or mental 
disability 
by 
a 
qualified 
health 
care 
professional 
or 
alcohol/substance abuse counselor; 
 
(ii) A determination that the chemical dependency or 
mental disability contributed to cause the misconduct; 
 
(iii) In the event of chemical dependency, a certification of 
successful completion of an approved treatment program or in the 
event of mental disability, a sustained period of successful 
treatment; 
 
(iv) A prognosis from a qualified health care professional 
or alcohol/substance abuse counselor that the attorney will be able 
to return to competent, ethical professional practice under specified 
conditions. 
 
January Term, 2012 
11 
 
{¶ 27} In support of their stipulation that Hilburn’s mental disability 
should be considered as a mitigating factor, the parties presented her OLAP 
contract.  Stephanie Krznarich, a licensed independent social worker employed by 
OLAP, signed the contract and also testified at the November 10, 2011 hearing. 
{¶ 28} Krznarich is also a licensed chemical-dependency counselor and 
has bachelor’s and master’s degrees in social work from Ohio State University. 
She testified that respondent was struggling with depression and thoughts of 
suicide when she came to OLAP.  Krznarich has taken at least one-third of the 
150 telephone calls from Hilburn to OLAP. She stated that respondent has had a 
positive outcome and agreed with Linda Ambrose, respondent’s certified nurse 
practitioner, who had stated that “with continued treatment, including continued 
commitment to the Ohio Lawyers Assistance Program, Ms. Hilburn can continue 
to function in an appropriate level in order to continue the practice of law in a 
competent and ethical manner.”  Krznarich further testified that she agreed with 
Ambrose’s report, which links Hilburn’s depression to the underlying misconduct 
set forth in the agreed stipulations. 
{¶ 29} A November 1, 2011 letter from Ambrose, Hilburn’s treating 
health-care professional, was admitted by stipulation.  It states that Ambrose has 
been a licensed certified nurse practitioner in Ohio for approximately ten years 
and has treated patients with mental health issues, including depression.  Ambrose 
is licensed to prescribe medications and make diagnoses and prognoses with 
respect to medical and mental health conditions.  She has provided care and 
treatment to Hilburn since February 2010 for diabetes and since July 2010 for 
depression.  Ambrose opined that in her “professional opinion with a reasonable 
degree of certainty [Hilburn’s] depression rendered her unable to function at a 
professional level, and contributed to cause the misconduct as set forth in the 
Agreed Stipulations.”  Ambrose also opined that respondent “sought appropriate 
medical care and has experienced a sustained period of successful treatment.” 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
12 
 
{¶ 30} The panel questioned whether the opinions of a certified nurse 
practitioner can support a finding of mental disability as a mitigating factor.  To 
address this issue, relator and respondent filed an agreed stipulation with the 
board on November 15, 2011.  The agreed stipulation refers to R.C. 4723.43(C) 
for support of the proposition that a certified nurse practitioner may provide an 
opinion on mental disability.  That section explicitly authorizes a certified nurse 
practitioner, when working “in collaboration with one or more physicians,” to 
“provide preventive and primary care services” as well as “evaluate and promote 
patient wellness within the nurse’s nursing specialty.” 
{¶ 31} In this case, Ambrose’s collaboration with Jeannine Hughes, M.D., 
who works in the same medical practice with Ambrose, and her diagnosis of 
Hilburn were documented by (1) a February 9, 2012 stipulation to the authenticity 
of an attached letter from Ms. Ambrose, that establishes that Hilburn was 
diagnosed with “recurrent depression” in June 2010, (2) a medical record attached 
to the stipulation indicating that Hilburn has a medical history of depression, and 
(3) an April 12, 2012 stipulation to the authenticity of an attached letter from 
Ambrose stating that Hilburn was diagnosed with depression by Dr. Hughes on 
March 21, 2007, and that Ambrose assumed treatment of Hilburn’s mental 
disability, in collaboration with Dr. Hughes, on June 25, 2010. 
{¶ 32} We agree with the panel and the board that the association of 
Ambrose with Dr. Hughes in the same medical practice and their successive 
rendition of medical- and health-related services to Hilburn satisfy the 
collaboration requirement of R.C. 4723.43(C) for purposes of applying BCGD 
Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(g) under the circumstances of this case.  Moreover, we agree 
that the record, in light of R.C. 4723.43(C), establishes Ambrose’s competency to 
give a professional opinion in support of a finding of mental disability as a 
mitigating factor under BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(g).  Of particular significance 
is Ambrose’s November 1, 2011 letter stating that she is experienced in treating 
January Term, 2012 
13 
 
patients with mental health issues, including depression, can make diagnoses and 
prognoses with respect to mental health conditions, and has been treating 
respondent for depression since July 2010. 
{¶ 33} Accordingly, respondent’s mental disability is a mitigating factor 
that may be considered in favor of a less severe sanction. 
Disposition 
{¶ 34} The parties proposed an agreed sanction of 18 months’ suspension 
from the practice of law, with 12 months stayed on conditions.  The panel and the 
board have adopted that sanction, and we agree. 
{¶ 35} Hilburn is therefore suspended from the practice of law for 18 
months from the date of this decision, with the final 12 months of the suspension 
stayed on the following conditions:  (1) Hilburn shall remain in compliance with 
her OLAP contract and the treatment recommendations of her mental health 
professionals, (2) upon Hilburn’s reinstatement, Hilburn shall serve a period of 
monitored probation in accordance with Gov.Bar R. V(9) for the stayed portion of 
the suspension, and Hilburn shall fully cooperate with the monitoring attorney in 
accordance with that rule, and (3) Hilburn shall not engage in any further 
misconduct.  If Hilburn fails to comply with the conditions of the stay, the stay 
shall be lifted, and she shall serve the full 18-month suspension.  Additionally, 
Hilburn’s reinstatement is conditioned upon the certification of a qualified 
psychiatrist that she is able to return to the competent, ethical, and professional 
practice of law. 
Conclusion 
{¶ 36} For all the foregoing reasons, we adopt the findings and 
conclusions of the board, and we impose the recommended sanction of an 18-
month suspension with 12 months stayed on the conditions set forth above.  If 
Hilburn violates any of the conditions, the stay shall be lifted and Hilburn shall 
serve the full 18-month suspension.  Costs are taxed to respondent. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
14 
 
Judgment accordingly. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’DONNELL, 
LANZINGER, CUPP, and MCGEE BROWN, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
 
Jonathan E. Coughlan, Disciplinary Counsel, and Stacy Beckman, 
Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. 
 
Kegler, Brown, Hill & Ritter and Christopher Weber, for respondent. 
______________________