[Cite as Toledo Bar Assn. v. Stahlbush, 126 Ohio St.3d 366, 2010-Ohio-3823.] 

TOLEDO BAR ASSOCIATION v. STAHLBUSH. 

[Cite as Toledo Bar Assn. v. Stahlbush, 126 Ohio St.3d 366, 2010-Ohio-3823.] 

Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Two-year license suspension with one year 

stayed on conditions. 

(No. 2010-0032 — Submitted March 30, 2010 — Decided August 24, 2010.) 

ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 

Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 08-059. 

__________________ 

Per Curiam. 

{¶ 1} Respondent, Kristin Ann Stahlbush of Toledo, Ohio, Attorney 

Registration No. 0064019, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1994. In 

August 2008, relator, Toledo Bar Association, filed a complaint charging her with 

violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility and the Ohio Rules of 

Professional Conduct for inflating the billable hours for work she performed as a 

court-appointed attorney in the juvenile- and general-division courts in Lucas 

County. Based upon findings that respondent committed multiple violations of 

the ethical standards incumbent upon Ohio lawyers, the board recommends that 

we suspend respondent’s license to practice law in Ohio for two years, with one 

year stayed on conditions. For the reasons that follow, we accept the board’s 

recommendation. 

Misconduct 

{¶ 2} Respondent, a solo practitioner in Toledo, Ohio, limited her 

practice primarily to court-appointed work in the juvenile and general divisions of 

the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas. In early 2007, court personnel 

discovered that respondent’s billings in the juvenile court were very high and that 

she had billed the juvenile court for more than 24 hours per day on at least three 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

2 

occasions, and more than 20 hours per day on five other occasions, in 2006. 

Further investigation revealed that on numerous additional occasions, respondent 

had billed the court for work in excess of 14 and up to 19 hours per day. When 

respondent failed to provide documentation to support the hours she had billed, 

the juvenile court’s administrative judge referred the matter to relator. After 

conducting an investigation, relator filed a five-count complaint alleging that 

respondent’s conduct violated DR 1-102(A)(4) (prohibiting conduct involving 

dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation), 1-102(A)(5) (prohibiting conduct 

prejudicial to the administration of justice), 1-102(A)(6) (prohibiting conduct that 

adversely reflects on a lawyer’s fitness to practice law), and 2-106(A) (prohibiting 

a lawyer from charging an excessive fee) and Prof.Cond.R. 8.1(b) (requiring a 

lawyer’s cooperation with disciplinary authority).1

{¶ 3} On the third day of the hearing before a panel of the Board of 

Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline, the parties submitted stipulations 

that the respondent had billed the county for 3,451.4 hours for appointed-counsel 

services in 2006, that a portion of the time she billed was false and fraudulent, and 

that her conduct violated DR 1-102(A)(4), 1-102(A)(5), 1-102(A)(6), and 2-

106(A). The panel accepted these stipulations and found that in addition to billing 

more than 24 hours in a day, respondent’s submissions to the court also aver that 

she worked 14 to 24 hours on numerous occasions. In one 96-hour period, 

respondent billed 90.3 hours, and in a separate 144-hour period, she billed 139.5 

hours. Additionally, the board found that respondent admitted that she had 

double-billed the general division of the court for work she performed in a capital 

case and that she had returned the unearned portion of those fees. 

 

1. Relator charged respondent with misconduct pursuant to applicable rules for acts occurring 

before and after February 1, 2007, the effective date of the Rules of Professional Conduct, which 

superseded the Code of Professional Responsibility. 
January Term, 2010 

3

{¶ 4} Based upon the parties’ stipulations and its own factual findings, 

the panel and board concluded, and we agree, that respondent’s conduct violated 

DR 1-102(A)(4), 1-102(A)(5), 1-102(A)(6), and 2-106(A). 

{¶ 5} The parties did not stipulate, and the panel and the board made no 

finding, regarding the allegation that respondent violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.1(b). 

However, in light of relator’s apparent abandonment of the claim and 

respondent’s eventual cooperation with the disciplinary process, we hereby 

dismiss Count Five of relator’s complaint. 

Sanction 

{¶ 6} When imposing sanctions for attorney misconduct, we consider 

relevant factors, including the ethical duties that 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. In making a final 

determination, we also weigh evidence of the aggravating and mitigating factors 

listed in Section 10(B) of the Rules and Regulations Governing Procedure on 

Complaints and Hearings Before the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 

Discipline (“BCGD Proc.Reg.”). Disciplinary Counsel v. Broeren, 115 Ohio 

St.3d 473, 2007-Ohio-5251, 875 N.E.2d 935, ¶ 21. 

{¶ 7} The board found that three of the nine aggravating factors set forth 

in BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1) are present: a dishonest or selfish motive, a pattern 

of misconduct, and multiple offenses. BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(b), (c), and (d). 

{¶ 8} In mitigation, the board found that respondent has no prior 

disciplinary record and that she is known by clients, peers, judges, and 

magistrates as a competent, hard-working attorney who represents her clients 

zealously. BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(a) and (e). The board also noted that 

respondent has made restitution to the general division of the common pleas court 

for the double-billing in one case, has agreed to forgo any claim for the $12,000 

in attorney-fee applications that she submitted to the court in 2007, and has been 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

4 

denied court appointments in the juvenile court, her primary source of income. 

See BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(f). 

{¶ 9} Relator sought a one-year suspension of respondent’s license to 

practice law, with six months stayed. Respondent, in contrast, argued for a twoyear suspension, but urged that the entire suspension be stayed. After considering 

respondent’s conduct, the aggravating and mitigating factors, and the sanctions 

imposed by this court in Disciplinary Counsel v. Agopian, 112 Ohio St.3d 103, 

2006-Ohio-6510, 858 N.E.2d 368; Disciplinary Counsel v. Holland, 106 Ohio 

St.3d 372, 2005-Ohio-5322, 835 N.E.2d 361; and Disciplinary Counsel v. Rohrer, 

124 Ohio St.3d 65, 2009-Ohio-5930, 919 N.E.2d 180, the panel and board now 

recommend that we impose a two-year license suspension with one year stayed on 

the conditions that respondent submit to one year of monitored probation and 

commit no further ethical violations. Respondent objects to the recommended 

sanction, arguing that it is excessive in light of the facts and the case law cited by 

the board. 

{¶ 10} In Agopian, the respondent had submitted fee requests for work 

performed in excess of 24 hours on three separate days. Agopian, 112 Ohio St.3d 

103, 2006-Ohio-6510, 858 N.E.2d 368, ¶ 6. The record demonstrated that the 

respondent had performed all the work he claimed in each case but that he had 

failed to accurately record the dates he appeared in court or the specific number of 

hours he had spent on those cases. Id. Nonetheless, there was no evidence that 

respondent had attempted to collect fees for work he did not perform. Id. Rather, 

the evidence demonstrated that the respondent had “ ‘routinely perform[ed] 

services in an amount far in excess of the time for which he submit[ted] payment 

requests.’ ” Id., quoting the panel. Instead of “ ‘taking one hour * * * and turning 

it into three,’ ” it appeared that he “ ‘was taking three hours and turning it into 

one.’ ” (Ellipsis sic.) Id., quoting a panel member. Therefore, we concluded that 

a public reprimand was the appropriate sanction in that case. Id. at ¶ 15. 
January Term, 2010 

5

{¶ 11} Respondent equates her “sloppy record-keeping” to the billing 

errors committed by the respondent in Agopian. The evidence, however, 

demonstrates that not only did she fail to keep adequate records of the hours she 

worked on behalf of her clients, but she also submitted fee requests that 

deceptively inflated the hours she worked, and that in some instances, she merely 

guessed at the time she had spent on a case. Viewed in isolation, her fee requests 

did not appear unreasonable to the judges and officials charged with reviewing 

them, but viewed on a continuum, they were simply incredible. 

{¶ 12} When confronted with the excessiveness of her fee requests, 

respondent initially maintained that she had worked every hour that she had 

billed. She eventually admitted that she could have made some mistakes in her 

billing, that she had failed to keep accurate time records, and that if her billing 

records were correct, she would have been working an average of almost ten 

hours a day, 365 days a year. Ultimately, she conceded that while she worked 

long hours, she did not maintain such a schedule. 

{¶ 13} Additionally, respondent regularly submitted bills exceeding the 

fee caps for her juvenile cases. Moreover, the former administrative judge 

testified that in 2006, attorneys practicing in the court were aware that he was 

“quite liberal” with approving fee requests that exceeded those caps. 

{¶ 14} As the board recognized, the facts of Holland are very similar to 

those in the case at bar. There, the respondent overcharged a juvenile court for 

services he provided as court-appointed counsel. Holland, 106 Ohio St.3d 372, 

2005-Ohio-5322, 835 N.E.2d 361, at ¶ 7-8. Although he was acquitted of 

criminal charges arising from his conduct, we agreed with the board’s 

determination that the respondent’s practice of charging multiple clients for the 

same hours violated DR 1-102(A)(4). Id. at ¶ 19. 

{¶ 15} In Holland, we observed, “Padding client bills with hours not 

worked is tantamount to misappropriation,” and disbarment is the presumptive 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

6 

sanction for misconduct involving misappropriation. Holland, 106 Ohio St.3d 

372, 2005-Ohio-5322, 835 N.E.2d 361, ¶ 20, citing Toledo Bar Assn. v. Batt

(1997), 78 Ohio St.3d 189, 677 N.E.2d 349, and Dayton Bar Assn. v. Gerren, 103 

Ohio St.3d 21, 2004-Ohio-4110, 812 N.E.2d 1280, ¶ 14. We emphasized that 

“[b]y overcharging the juvenile court, respondent exploited an already 

overburdened system designed to aid the poorest members of our society and 

lessened public confidence in the legal profession and compromised its integrity.” 

Id. at ¶ 22. Therefore, while recognizing the respondent’s reputation and lack of a 

prior disciplinary record as mitigating factors, we concluded that his practice of 

certifying inflated fee requests that could not be explained by any conceivable 

mistake warranted a harsher sanction than the recommended one-year suspension 

with six months stayed. Id. at ¶ 23-25. Accordingly, we imposed a one-year 

suspension from the practice of law. Id. at ¶ 25. 

{¶ 16} Respondent also objects to the board’s reliance upon Rohrer, 124 

Ohio St.3d 65, 2009-Ohio-5930, 919 N.E.2d 180, claiming that “the issues were 

completely different,” because in Rohrer, the respondent deliberately violated a 

court order not to discuss a client’s case with the media and then lied about doing 

so. See Rohrer at ¶ 20. In contrast, respondent contends that the board found that 

many of her problems were due to her “sloppy record-keeping” and, with one 

exception, were not intentional. Respondent steadfastly maintained that she had 

worked every hour she billed until relator confronted her with the fact that she 

would have had to have worked an average of almost ten hours per day, 365 days 

a year to have worked all of the hours she billed – testimony that was patently 

false in light of her admission that she did not maintain such a schedule. Despite 

respondent’s arguments, poor record keeping alone cannot explain overbilling of 

such magnitude. 

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

mitigating factors, and considered the sanctions imposed for comparable conduct, 
January Term, 2010 

7

we reject respondent’s objection and adopt the board’s recommended sanction of 

a two-year license suspension with one year stayed. Accordingly, Kristin Ann 

Stahlbush is suspended from the practice of law in the state of Ohio for two years, 

with one year stayed on the conditions that she submit to one year of monitored 

probation and commit no further ethical violations. If respondent fails to meet 

these conditions, the stay of her suspension will be lifted, and respondent will 

serve the entire two-year suspension from the practice of law. Costs are taxed to 

respondent. 

Judgment accordingly. 

 PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’CONNOR, O’DONNELL, FARMER, and 

CUPP, JJ., concur. 

 BROWN, C.J., not participating. 

 SHEILA G. FARMER, J., of the Fifth Appellate District, sitting for 

LANZINGER, J. 

__________________ 

Jonathan B. Cherry, Bar Counsel, George E. Gerken, and Vincent S. 

Mezinko, for relator. 

Lorin J. Zaner, for respondent. 

______________________