[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 

Lorain Cty. Bar Assn. v. Robinson, Slip Opinion No. 2024-Ohio-1657.]

 

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. 2024-OHIO-1657

LORAIN COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION v. ROBINSON.

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 

may be cited as Lorain Cty. Bar Assn. v. Robinson, Slip Opinion No. 

2024-Ohio-1657.]

Attorneys—Misconduct—Attorney violated Rules of Professional Conduct by 

abusing illicit drugs for extended period culminating in felony conviction 

for maintaining drug premises and by failing to self-report felony 

conviction—Indefinite suspension with credit for time served under interim 

felony suspension.

(No. 2024-0169—Submitted March 12, 2024—Decided May 2, 2024.)

ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Professional Conduct of the Supreme 

Court, No. 2023-005.

__________________

Per Curiam.

{¶ 1} Respondent, James Terry Robinson, of Elyria, Ohio, Attorney 

Registration No. 0068785, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1997.
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

2

{¶ 2} On January 29, 2009, this court indefinitely suspended Robinson in a 

default disciplinary proceeding for neglecting several bankruptcy matters, 

misrepresenting the status of those cases, and intentionally causing prejudice to his 

clients. Lorain Cty. Bar Assn. v. Robinson, 121 Ohio St.3d 24, 2009-Ohio-262, 901 

N.E.2d 783. In January 2023, we imposed a second suspension on Robinson—an 

interim felony suspension—based on his April 2022 conviction for maintaining a 

drug premises in violation of 21 U.S.C. 856(A)(1). In re Robinson, 172 Ohio St.3d 

1204, 2023-Ohio-64, 222 N.E.3d 669. Those suspensions remain in effect.

{¶ 3} In a March 2023 complaint, relator, Lorain County Bar Association, 

alleged that Robinson had failed to self-report his felony conviction to attorneydiscipline authorities and that his serious substance-abuse issues adversely reflect 

on his fitness to practice law.

{¶ 4} The parties submitted stipulations of fact, misconduct, and 

aggravating and mitigating factors. Robinson did not object to the five exhibits

submitted by relator. The matter proceeded to a hearing before a three-member 

panel of the Board of Professional Conduct. Based on the parties’ stipulations and 

Robinson’s testimony, the panel found by clear and convincing evidence that 

Robinson had committed the charged misconduct, and it recommended that he be 

indefinitely suspended from the practice of law with credit for the time served under 

his interim felony suspension imposed on January 13, 2023. In addition, the panel 

recommended that certain conditions related to Robinson’s substance-abuse 

recovery be placed on his reinstatement to the profession.

{¶ 5} The board adopted the panel’s report and recommendation. The 

parties filed a joint waiver of objections to the board’s findings and 

recommendations and jointly recommended that the court adopt the board’s report. 

See Gov.Bar R. V(17)(B)(3). For the reasons that follow, we adopt the board’s 

findings of misconduct and recommended sanction.
January Term, 2024

3

MISCONDUCT

{¶ 6} In December 2022, Robinson informed relator of his intent to seek 

reinstatement from his 2009 indefinite suspension, and he provided relator with a 

draft of the petition for reinstatement he intended to file with this court. In that 

document, Robinson disclosed for the first time that he had been convicted of a 

felony drug offense in April 2022. He also included statements and documents that 

were meant to demonstrate his good behavior following his conviction—namely,

that he had stopped using drugs, completed inpatient and outpatient substanceabuse treatment programs, and complied with the terms of his criminal probation.

{¶ 7} In 2020, a federal grand jury in the United States District Court for 

the Northern District of Ohio indicted Robinson in case No. 1:20CR355-006 in 

connection with a conspiracy to possess and distribute crack cocaine between 

January 2018 and July 2020. Robinson faced an additional charge related to his 

drug use in case No. 21CR819-001. Robinson’s November 2021 plea agreement

demonstrates that between January 2018 and July 2020, he ordered crack cocaine, 

a Schedule I controlled substance, from a person who made weekly deliveries to 

his Elyria home and that he maintained between 22.4 and 28 grams of crack cocaine 

for use at the premises.

{¶ 8} Robinson pleaded guilty in case No. 1:21CR819-001 to a single count 

of maintaining a drug premises in violation of 21 U.S.C. 856(a)(1), and the 

indictment against him in case No. 1:20CR355-006 was dismissed. On April 27, 

2022, the district court sentenced Robinson to a three-year term of probation, which 

is scheduled to end on April 26, 2025, and ordered him to pay a special assessment 

of $100.

{¶ 9} Robinson’s testimony before the panel in this disciplinary case 

demonstrates that his conviction followed an extensive investigation into a group 

of people who were manufacturing and distributing drugs, specifically crack 

cocaine. During that investigation, a search warrant was executed on Robinson’s 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

4

home. In this disciplinary proceeding, Robinson admitted that he purchased and 

used crack cocaine for about eight years prior to the execution of that search warrant 

and that from January 2018 through July 2020, he received weekly deliveries of the 

drug. He claimed, however, that he did not use the drug every day and that no drugs 

were found during the search of his home.

{¶ 10} At his disciplinary hearing, Robinson testified that after having 

experienced a “raid” on his home by federal-law-enforcement officers that 

disrupted his wife and family, he stopped using crack cocaine. As part of his 

criminal probation, he completed inpatient and outpatient substance-abuse 

treatment programs and submitted to numerous drug tests, all of which were clean. 

Robinson testified that he continues to participate in two Narcotics Anonymous 

groups and that he attends an additional support-group meeting conducted by the 

Ohio Lawyers Assistance Program (“OLAP”). He entered into a two-year OLAP 

contract on February 19, 2023, and at the time of his disciplinary hearing, he was 

in full compliance with that contract.

{¶ 11} The parties stipulated and the board found by clear and convincing 

evidence that Robinson violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.3(a) (requiring a lawyer to selfreport ethical violations that raise a question about the lawyer’s honesty, 

trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer). The parties further stipulated and the board 

found that Robinson failed to report his felony conviction within ten days of the 

judgment’s entry.

{¶ 12} Prof.Cond.R. 8.3(a) does not provide a deadline for an attorney to 

self-report his or her own misconduct. Rather, Gov.Bar R. V(18)(A)(2) imposes a 

deadline on the judge who enters a judgment of conviction against an attorney to 

make such a report, stating:

A certified copy of the entry of conviction of a judicial 

officer or an attorney of a felony offense shall be transmitted within 
January Term, 2024

5

ten days of the date of the entry by the judge entering the judgment 

to the director of the Board and to the Office of Disciplinary Counsel 

or the president, secretary, or chair of the geographically appropriate 

certified grievance committee.

{¶ 13} Regardless of the judge’s deadline under that rule, we agree that 

under Prof.Cond.R. 8.3(a), Robinson had a duty to self-report his felony conviction

and that his failure to do so for nearly eight months after entry of the felony 

conviction raises a question about his honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness to practice 

law. See, e.g., Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn. v. McElroy, 140 Ohio St.3d 391, 2014-

Ohio-3774, 18 N.E.3d 1191, ¶ 7-8, 14 (attorney’s failure to report his felony 

convictions for forgery and tampering with evidence to a disciplinary body violated 

Prof.Cond.R. 8.3(a)). Even then, Robinson did not inform relator that his criminal 

conduct raised a question about his honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness to practice 

law. Instead, he reported his felony conviction as part of a draft petition for 

reinstatement to the practice of law as a means of demonstrating that he had 

complied with his criminal sanctions and was fit to resume the practice of law. On 

these facts, we adopt the board’s finding that Robinson’s conduct violated 

Prof.Cond.R. 8.3(a).

{¶ 14} In addition to that finding of misconduct, the parties stipulated and 

the board found that Robinson violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(h) (prohibiting a lawyer 

from engaging in conduct that adversely reflects on the lawyer’s fitness to practice 

law) by abusing narcotics for at least eight of the 14 years preceding his disciplinary 

hearing in this case.

{¶ 15} A hearing panel must determine by clear and convincing evidence 

that a lawyer has committed misconduct before a sanction may be imposed, 

Gov.Bar R. V(12)(I), and in Disciplinary Counsel v. Bricker, 137 Ohio St.3d 35, 

2013-Ohio-3998, 997 N.E.2d 500, ¶ 21, we explained that in order to find a 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

6

violation of Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(h), the evidence must demonstrate that either (1) the 

lawyer engaged in misconduct that adversely reflects on the lawyer’s fitness to 

practice law even if the misconduct is not specifically prohibited by another 

disciplinary rule or (2) the conduct giving rise to a specific rule violation is so 

egregious that it warrants an additional finding that it adversely reflects on the 

lawyer’s fitness to practice law.

{¶ 16} We find that although not addressed by the board, Robinson’s 

extended period of illicit drug use, which culminated with his felony conviction for

maintaining a drug premises, falls within the catchall provision of Prof.Cond.R. 

8.4(h). See, e.g., Disciplinary Counsel v. Landis, 124 Ohio St.3d 508, 2010-Ohio927, 924 N.E.2d 361, ¶ 1-2 (attorney’s felony conviction for operating motor 

vehicle while intoxicated adversely reflected on his fitness to practice law, in 

violation of Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(h)). We therefore adopt the board’s finding that the 

conduct at issue in this case violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(h).

SANCTION

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

relevant factors, including the ethical duties that the attorney violated, the 

aggravating and mitigating factors listed in Gov.Bar R. V(13), and the sanctions 

imposed in similar cases.

{¶ 18} The parties stipulated that Robinson’s prior discipline and multiple 

offenses are aggravating factors in this case. See Gov.Bar R. V(13)(B)(1) and (4). 

They also stipulated to just one mitigating factor—that Robinson had exhibited a 

cooperative attitude toward the disciplinary proceedings. See Gov.Bar R. 

V(13)(C)(4). In addition to those factors, the board found that Robinson had

presented evidence of his good character and reputation and had other penalties and 

sanctions imposed for his misconduct. See Gov.Bar R. V(13)(C)(5) and (6). While

the board noted that Robinson had not exhibited a dishonest or selfish motive, the 

board does not appear to have attributed any mitigating effect to that fact.
January Term, 2024

7

{¶ 19} Robinson’s past substance abuse is obviously and inextricably 

linked to his misconduct in this case. See Gov.Bar R. (V)(13)(C)(7)(b). Although

Robinson presented some evidence that he has been diagnosed with a substanceuse disorder and has successfully completed an approved treatment program, see 

Gov.Bar R. V(13)(C)(7)(a) and (c), he has not presented a prognosis from a 

qualified healthcare professional that he will be able to return to the competent, 

ethical, professional practice of law under specified conditions, see Gov.Bar R. 

V(13)(C)(7)(d). Consequently, Robinson’s substance-use disorder does not qualify 

as a mitigating factor under Gov.Bar R. V(13)(C)(7). Nevertheless, this court 

generally tempers the sanctions imposed for attorney misconduct in cases involving 

substance abuse when the respondent has demonstrated a commitment to sobriety. 

See, e.g., Disciplinary Counsel v. Gallagher, 82 Ohio St.3d 51, 53, 693 N.E.2d 

1078 (1998).

{¶ 20} In determining the appropriate sanction to recommend for 

Robinson’s misconduct, the board found Disciplinary Counsel v. Cantrell

(“Cantrell II”), 130 Ohio St.3d 46, 2011-Ohio-4554, 955 N.E.2d 950, to be 

instructive. In December 2009, disciplinary counsel charged Cantrell with 

professional misconduct related to her conviction on two felony counts of grand 

theft for illegally obtaining Section 8 housing and a single felony count of 

possession of cocaine. Id. at ¶ 3-4, 9-10.

{¶ 21} While Cantrell’s felony-related disciplinary case was pending, we 

indefinitely suspended her in a separate disciplinary case for engaging in a pattern 

of misconduct involving the improper use of her client trust account, 

misappropriating client funds, and knowingly practicing law while her license was 

inactive. See Disciplinary Counsel v. Cantrell (“Cantrell I”), 125 Ohio St.3d 458, 

2010-Ohio-2114, 928 N.E.2d 1100, ¶ 2, 25.

{¶ 22} Approximately 16 months after we indefinitely suspended Cantrell

in Cantrell I, we found in the felony-related disciplinary case that Cantrell’s 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

8

criminal conduct constituted illegal acts that adversely reflected on her honesty or 

trustworthiness and on her fitness to practice law. See Cantrell II at ¶ 4-5, 11. The 

mitigating factors present in Cantrell II included the only mitigating factor that is 

present in this case. See id. at ¶ 13. But in addition to having a prior disciplinary 

record and committing multiple offenses like Robinson, Cantrell acted with a 

dishonest or selfish motive and, after stipulating to all but the appropriate sanction 

for her misconduct, she failed to appear at the disciplinary hearing. Id. at ¶ 5-6, 15-

16. We rejected the board’s recommendation that Cantrell be permanently 

disbarred and imposed a second indefinite suspension for the conduct underlying 

her criminal convictions, ordering her to serve the second suspension consecutively 

to her first indefinite suspension. Id. at ¶ 17-18.

{¶ 23} Here, citing similarities between this case and Cantrell II, the board 

concluded that imposing a second indefinite suspension on Robinson would 

“strike[] the appropriate balance between deterrence and public protection on one 

hand, and [Robinson’s] sincere commitment to his sobriety and betterment on the 

other hand.” The board therefore recommends that Robinson be indefinitely 

suspended from the practice of law and that he receive credit for the time served 

under his interim felony suspension imposed on January 13, 2023. Additionally, 

the board recommends that any future reinstatement to the profession be 

conditioned on Robinson’s continued participation in Narcotics Anonymous and 

compliance with his February 2023 OLAP contract.

{¶ 24} By his own admission, Robinson used illegal drugs for 

approximately eight years while he was indefinitely suspended from the practice of 

law for neglecting the bankruptcy matters of four clients, misrepresenting the status 

of several of those matters, and intentionally causing harm to several of those 

clients. In this proceeding, however, he has demonstrated his strong commitment 

to his addiction recovery and compliance with the terms of his criminal probation. 

Having thoroughly reviewed the record and our caselaw, we agree that the board’s 
January Term, 2024

9

recommended sanction of an indefinite suspension with credit for the time served 

under his interim felony suspension and with additional recovery-related conditions 

on hisreinstatement to the practice of law is the appropriate sanction for Robinson’s 

misconduct in this case.

CONCLUSION

{¶ 25} Accordingly, James Terry Robinson is indefinitely suspended from 

the practice of law in Ohio with credit for the time served under the interim felony 

suspension imposed on January 13, 2023. In addition to the requirements of 

Gov.Bar R. V(25), Robinson’s reinstatement to the profession shall be conditioned 

on proof that he has continued to participate in Narcotics Anonymous and has 

complied with his February 2023 OLAP contract. Costs are taxed to Robinson.

Judgment accordingly.

DEWINE, DONNELLY, STEWART, and DETERS, JJ., concur.

KENNEDY, C.J., and FISCHER, J., concur in part and dissent in part and would 

not award credit for the time served under the interim felony suspension.

BRUNNER, J., not participating.

_________________

Dooley, Gembala, McLaughlin & Pecora Co., L.P.A., Matthew A. Dooley, 

and Michael R. Briach, for relator.

James Terry Robinson, pro se.

_________________