[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Stubbs, 128 Ohio St.3d 344, 2011-Ohio-553.] 

DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. STUBBS. 

[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Stubbs, 128 Ohio St.3d 344, 2011-Ohio-553.] 

Attorneys — Misconduct — Failure to properly maintain and use a client trust 

account — Failure to cooperate in a disciplinary investigation — Failure 

to pay client expense from settlement proceeds as agreed — Indefinite 

suspension.

(No. 2010-1803 — Submitted January 4, 2011 — Decided February 15, 2011.) 

ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 

Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 10-009. 

__________________ 

Per Curiam. 

{¶ 1} Respondent, SaKeya MonCheree Stubbs of Columbus, Ohio, 

Attorney Registration No. 0071309, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 

1999. 

{¶ 2} On May 14, 2010, relator, Disciplinary Counsel, filed an amended 

five-count complaint charging respondent with professional misconduct arising 

from her alleged misuse of her client trust account, failure to maintain adequate 

records of client funds held in her trust account, failure to pay certain client 

expenses from settlement proceeds as agreed, and failure to respond to the 

resulting disciplinary investigations. 

{¶ 3} Relator attempted to serve respondent with a copy of its amended 

complaint by certified mail at her office address, but the postal service returned 

that mailing unclaimed. A second certified mailing to a new address provided by 

the postal service was also returned unclaimed. On July 26, 2010, the clerk of the 

Supreme Court of Ohio accepted service on respondent’s behalf, in accordance 

with Gov.Bar R. V(11)(B). Respondent did not answer the complaint or 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

2

otherwise appear in the proceeding, and relator moved for default pursuant to 

Gov.Bar R. V(6)(F). 

{¶ 4} A master commissioner appointed by the Board of Commissioners 

on Grievances and Discipline granted relator’s motion, making findings of fact 

and misconduct and recommending that respondent be indefinitely suspended 

from the practice of law and directed to make restitution to her client. The board 

adopted the master commissioner’s report in its entirety. For the reasons that 

follow, we accept these findings of fact and misconduct, adopt the board’s 

recommendation, indefinitely suspend respondent from the practice of law in 

Ohio, and order her to pay restitution to the affected client. 

Misconduct 

{¶ 5} The master commissioner found that in November 2008, relator 

attempted to communicate with respondent regarding overdrafts on her client trust 

account. Although several letters were delivered to respondent’s office via 

certified mail and personal service, respondent did not respond. She missed a 

scheduled deposition, even though a subpoena for her appearance had been 

delivered to her secretary. Although she later appeared and testified, she did not 

provide all the documents that she was ordered to produce, including her client 

ledgers, canceled checks, and her trust account check register. She admitted that 

she had failed to maintain accurate records for her trust account, that she had 

deposited earned fees and payments for court-appointed cases into that account, 

and that she had used the account to pay personal and office expenses. The record 

further demonstrates that her trust account was overdrawn or checks were 

returned for insufficient funds at least 17 times from October 2008 to August 

2009. 

{¶ 6} The master commissioner also found that after settling a client’s 

personal-injury claim in February 2009, respondent agreed to pay certain of the 

client’s medical bills from the settlement funds. She retained $5,489 of the 
January Term, 2011 

3

settlement proceeds to pay those bills but later advised the client that she had used 

the money to pay her own bills. Although she promised to return the money to 

the client by January 4, 2010, she did not do so. She also failed to respond to 

relator’s investigation of the client’s grievance. 

{¶ 7} Based upon these facts, the master commissioner concluded that 

respondent’s conduct with respect to the management of her client trust account 

violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.15(a)(2) (requiring a lawyer to maintain a record for each 

client on whose behalf funds are held) and (a)(3) (requiring a lawyer to maintain a 

record for the lawyer’s client trust account setting forth the name of the account, 

the date, amount, and client affected by each credit and debit, and the balance in 

the account), and 8.4(d) (prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct that is 

prejudicial to the administration of justice) and (h) (prohibiting a lawyer from 

engaging in conduct that adversely reflects on the lawyer's fitness to practice law). 

Her handling of her client settlement proceeds violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.15(d) 

(requiring a lawyer to promptly deliver funds or other property that the client is 

entitled to receive) and 8.4(c) (prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct 

involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation), (d), and (h). 

Respondent’s failure to cooperate in each of the resulting investigations also 

violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(d) and (h) as well as Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) (requiring a 

lawyer to cooperate with a disciplinary investigation). 

{¶ 8} Citing a lack of clear and convincing evidence, the master 

commissioner made no findings regarding allegations that respondent had 

engaged in improper fee sharing or that she had failed to pay the medical 

expenses of other clients. 

{¶ 9} The board accepted the master commissioner’s findings of fact and 

misconduct and dismissed the allegations that were not supported by clear and 

convincing evidence. See Gov.Bar R. V(6)(K). We also accept these findings. 

Sanction 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

4

{¶ 10} In recommending that we indefinitely suspend respondent from the 

practice of law in Ohio, the master commissioner and board considered the 

aggravating and mitigating factors of respondent’s case. See BCGD Proc.Reg. 

10(B). They cited as aggravating factors respondent’s prior disciplinary history, 

including a six-month stayed suspension and one year of monitored probation, 

which had been imposed after respondent had falsified a document in an attempt 

to convince the Ohio Bureau of Motor Vehicles that she had been properly 

insured at the time she had received a traffic citation, and two separate attorneyregistration suspensions. See BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(a); Columbus Bar Assn. 

v. Stubbs, 109 Ohio St.3d 446, 2006-Ohio-2818, 848 N.E.2d 843; In re Attorney 

Registration Suspension of Stubbs, 116 Ohio St.3d 1420, 2007-Ohio-6463, 877 

N.E.2d 305; In re Attorney Registration Suspension of Stubbs, 123 Ohio St.3d 

1475, 2009-Ohio-5786, 915 N.E.2d 1256. They also found that she had engaged 

in a pattern of misconduct involving multiple offenses, failed to cooperate in the 

disciplinary process, caused harm to a vulnerable client, and failed to make 

restitution to that client. See BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(c), (d), (e), (h), and (i). 

Although the master commissioner and board acknowledged respondent’s 

previous participation in the Ohio Lawyers Assistance Program, they observed 

that she was no longer an active participant in the program and had produced no 

evidence that she suffered from a mental disability. Therefore, they found that no 

mitigating factors were present. See BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2). 

{¶ 11} Respondent has breached her duties to her clients, the public, and 

the legal profession by failing to maintain accurate records of the funds held in 

her client trust account, failing to promptly deliver funds that a client was entitled 

to receive, and failing to cooperate in the disciplinary process. We have 

previously recognized that an indefinite suspension is an appropriate sanction for 

a lawyer who has failed to maintain accurate records of the funds held in her 

client trust account, failed to promptly deliver funds that a client is entitled to 
January Term, 2011 

5

receive, failed to provide diligent and competent legal representation to her 

clients, and failed to cooperate in the resulting disciplinary investigation. See 

Columbus Bar Assn. v. Torian, 106 Ohio St.3d 14, 2005-Ohio-3216, 829 N.E.2d 

1210, at ¶ 17. 

{¶ 12} Having reviewed the record, weighed the aggravating and 

mitigating factors, and considered the sanctions imposed for comparable conduct, 

we agree that an indefinite suspension is the appropriate sanction in this case. 

{¶ 13} Accordingly, SaKeya MonCheree Stubbs is indefinitely suspended 

from the practice of law in the state of Ohio, and any petition for reinstatement is 

must include proof that she has paid restitution to the affected client. Costs are 

taxed to respondent. 

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 Robert R. Berger, Senior 

Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. 

______________________