[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Glaser, Slip Opinion No. 2016-Ohio-3052.]

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 De cisions, 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.

S LIP O PINION N O . 2016-O HIO -3052
C INCINNATI B AR A SSOCIATION v . G LASER . [Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Glaser, Slip Opinion No. 2016-Ohio-3052.] Attorneys—Misconduct—Committi ng an illegal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty or trustworthiness—A ttorney convicted of attempting to permit drug use, a misdemeanor—Six-month suspension, stayed on
conditions. (No. 2015-2008—Submitted January 27, 2016—Decided May 19, 2016.)
O N C ERTIFIED R EPORT by the Board of Professi onal Conduct of the Supreme Court, No. 2014-101.

__________________ Per Curiam. {¶ 1} Respondent, Angela Joy Glaser of Cincinnati, Ohio, Attorney Registration No. 0091318, was admitted to the practice of law in 2013. In December 2014, relator, Cincinnati Bar Association, charged her with violatingS UPREME C OURT OF O HIO

2 Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(b) (prohibiting a lawy er from committing an illegal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honest y or trustworthiness) after she was convicted of attempting to permit drug abuse in her home, a first-degree misdemeanor. Based on the parties’ fa ctual stipulations and other evidence presented at a hearing before a three-me mber panel of the Board of Professional Conduct, the board found that she engaged in the charged misconduct and
recommended that we sanc tion her with a six-month suspension, stayed on conditions. Neither party has filed obj ections to the board’s report and
recommendation. {¶ 2} Based on our review of the record, we adopt the board’s findings of misconduct and agree that its recommended sa nction is appropriate in this case.
Misconduct {¶ 3} In 2011, while in law school, Glaser l eased a house in Cincinnati. Her minor daughter and then long-time boyfri end, Jackie Sanders, lived in the home with her, although Sanders’s name was not on the lease. Glaser claims that while she was in school, her relationship with Sa nders began deteriorating: he was not permanently employed, he was drinking heav ily, and he could be abusive to her at times. In 2013, after graduating from law school, Glaser began working at the Hamilton County Public Defender’s Office. She claims that at that point, she and
Sanders were essentia lly living in separate areas of the house and that she planned on moving out. {¶ 4} However, in January 2014, the poli ce conducted a search of the home and found various illegal drugs, two digital scales, and a gun registered in Glaser’s
name that was stuffed with heroin. Sande rs was later charged with and pled guilty to several felonies, including trafficking in and possession of heroin, trafficking in cocaine, and having a weapon while under a disability. He was sentenced to 24 months in prison. Glaser was charged with knowingly permitting drug abuse onJanuary Term, 2016

3 her premises, a fifth-degree felony, but she ultimately pled guilty to the lesser attempt charge. Following her plea, she was sentenced to pay a $100 fine. {¶ 5} At her disciplinary hearing, Glas er acknowledged that she had had concerns about the number of people that Sanders was permitting to come into the
basement area of her home and about whet her those individuals were engaging in any criminal activity. But she further tes tified that she had not known that Sanders had cocaine or heroin in the home, that she had not placed the heroin in her gun, and that she had never seen the digital scal es in her house. She also testified that she has no plans to continue her relationshi p with Sanders once he is released from prison. {¶ 6} Based on the hearing evidence and Glaser’s misdemeanor conviction,
the board found that she had violated Pr of.Cond.R. 8.4(b). During the hearing, relator added a charge under Prof.Cond.R . 8.4(h) (prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct that adversely reflects on the lawyer’s fitness to practice law), but the panel dismissed the ne w allegation. We agree with the board’s finding of a Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(b) violation and with the decision to dismiss the new charge.
Sanction {¶ 7} When imposing sanctions for attorney misconduct, we consider several relevant factors, including the et hical duties that the lawyer violated, the aggravating and mitigating factors listed in Gov.Bar R. V(13), and the sanctions imposed in similar cases. Aggravating and mitigating factors {¶ 8} The board found no aggravating factor s in this case. In mitigation, the board recognized that Glaser has no prior discipline, she had a cooperative attitude toward the disciplinary proce ss, she self-reported her conduct to disciplinary authorities, she cooperated in Sanders’s prosecution, and she submitted
several character references. See Gov.Bar R. V(13)(C)(1), (4), and (5). We concur.S UPREME C OURT OF O HIO

4 Applicable precedent {¶ 9} In crafting its recommended sancti on, the board primarily analyzed two similar cases in which we disciplined attorneys after they were convicted of first-degree misdemeanors. First, in Disciplinary Counsel v. Grigsby , 128 Ohio St.3d 413, 2011-Ohio-1446, 945 N.E.2d 512, we imposed a conditionally stayed 18-month suspension on an attorney who wa s convicted on a charge of misuse of a credit card arising from her unauthorized use of an employer’s corporate credit card to cover her personal expenses. Id . at ¶ 3-4, 11. Second, in Disciplinary Counsel
v. Grubb , 142 Ohio St.3d 521, 2015-Ohio-1349, 33 N.E.3d 40, we imposed a stayed six-month suspension on an attorney who was convicted on a charge of complicity to commit workers’ compensation fraud for pr oviding funds to a client while that client was also receiving tempor ary-total-disability benefits. Id . at ¶ 3-4, 10. Both cases involved similar mitigating factors, including no prior discipline and full cooperation in the disc iplinary process. Grigsby at ¶ 7; Grubb at ¶ 7. {¶ 10} We imposed a longer suspension in Grigsby than in Grubb , however, because the attorney in Grigsby had also violated Prof .Cond.R. 8.4(c) (prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct invol ving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation). Consequently, we also found that the attorney’s dishonesty in Grigsby was an aggravating factor. See Grigsby at ¶ 5, 7. In contrast, we found no
dishonest conduct in Grubb , and indeed, there were no aggravating factors in that case. Accordingly, the circumstances in Grubb warranted the lesser six-month stayed suspension. See Grubb at ¶ 8-9. {¶ 11} We agree with the board that Grubb is more analogous here. Glaser has not violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(c), ther e has been no finding of dishonest or deceitful conduct, and there are no aggravating factors in this case. Thus, consistent
with Grubb
, a six-month suspension, stayed on conditions, is appropriate. See also Disciplinary Counsel v. Carroll , 106 Ohio St.3d 84, 2005-Ohio-3805, 831 N.E.2d 1000, ¶ 6, 9-10, 12, 14-15 (stayed six-month suspension for attorney convicted ofJanuary Term, 2016

5 a misdemeanor for making misrepresentations on his timesheets when significant mitigating factors and no aggravating factors were present).
Conclusion {¶ 12} Having considered Glaser’s misc onduct, the mitigating factors, the absence of any aggravating factors, and th e sanctions imposed in comparable cases, we adopt the board’s recomme nded sanction. Accordingly, Angela Joy Glaser is hereby suspended from the practice of law for six months, with the entire suspension stayed on the conditions that she (1) submit to an assessment for domestic abuse by a professional affiliated with the Ohio Lawyers Assistance Program or by anothe r qualified professional and comply with any recommendations made as a result of that assessment, (2) submit to monitoring by an attorney due to Glaser’s new-lawyer status, (3) refrain from any further misconduct, and (4) pay the costs of these proceedings. If Glaser fails to comply with the conditions of the stay, the stay shall be lifted and she shall serve the full six-month suspension. Costs are taxed to Glaser. Judgment accordingly.
O’C ONNOR , C.J., and P FEIFER , O’D ONNELL , L ANZINGER , K ENNEDY , F RENCH , and O’N EILL , JJ., concur.

_________________ Edwin W. Patterson III, General Counse l; and Nancy J. Gill, for relator. William B. Strubbe, for respondent.

_________________