[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 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. 2016-OHIO-3052

CINCINNATI BAR ASSOCIATION v. GLASER. 

[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—Committing an illegal act that reflects adversely on the 

lawyer’s honesty or trustworthiness—Attorney 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.) 

ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Professional 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 violating 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

2

Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(b) (prohibiting a lawyer from committing an illegal act that 

reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty or trustworthiness) after she was 

convicted of attempting to permit drug abuse in her home, a first-degree 

misdemeanor. Based on the parties’ factual stipulations and other evidence 

presented at a hearing before a three-member panel of the Board of Professional 

Conduct, the board found that she engaged in the charged misconduct and 

recommended that we sanction her with a six-month suspension, stayed on 

conditions. Neither party has filed objections 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 sanction is appropriate in this case. 

Misconduct

{¶ 3} In 2011, while in law school, Glaser leased a house in Cincinnati. Her 

minor daughter and then long-time boyfriend, 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 Sanders began deteriorating: he was not 

permanently employed, he was drinking heavily, 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 essentially living in separate areas of the house and that she planned 

on moving out. 

{¶ 4} However, in January 2014, the police 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. Sanders 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 on 
January 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, Glaser 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 whether those individuals were engaging in 

any criminal activity. But she further testified 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 scales in her house. She also testified that 

she has no plans to continue her relationship 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 Prof.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 new 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 ethical 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 factors in this case. In mitigation, 

the board recognized that Glaser has no prior discipline, she had a cooperative 

attitude toward the disciplinary process, 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. 

 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

4

Applicable precedent 

{¶ 9} In crafting its recommended sanction, 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 was 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 providing funds to a client while that 

client was also receiving temporary-total-disability benefits. Id. at ¶ 3-4, 10. Both 

cases involved similar mitigating factors, including no prior discipline and full 

cooperation in the disciplinary 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 involving 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), there 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 of 
January 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 misconduct, the mitigating factors, the 

absence of any aggravating factors, and the sanctions imposed in comparable cases, 

we adopt the board’s recommended 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 another 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’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, KENNEDY,

FRENCH, and O’NEILL, JJ., concur. 

_________________ 

Edwin W. Patterson III, General Counsel; and Nancy J. Gill, for relator. 

William B. Strubbe, for respondent. 

_________________