[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advanc e sheets, it may be cited as Lorain Cty. Bar Assn. v. Robinson , Slip Opinion No. 2021-Ohio-2123.]

NOTICE This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is pu blished in an advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports. Readers are req uested to promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 65 South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographic al or other formal errors in the opini on, in order that corrections m ay be made before the opi nion is published.

S LIP O PINION N O

. 2021-O HIO -2123

L ORAIN C OUNTY B AR A SSOCIATION v . R OBINSON

. [Until this opinion appears in t he Ohio Official Reports advanc e sheets, it may be cited as Lorain Cty. Bar Assn. v. Robinson , Slip Opinion No. 2021-Ohio-2123.] Attorneys—Misconduct—Violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct— Overbilling for services performe d as court-appointed attorney—Twoyear suspension, with one year stayed on conditions. (No. 2021-0228—Submitted Mar ch 31, 2021—Decided June 29, 2021.)

O N C ERTIFIED R EPORT by the Board of Professiona l Conduct of the Supreme Court, No. 2020-028.

______________ Per Curiam. {¶ 1} Respondent, Jeanette Michele Robi nson, of Elyria, Ohio, Attorne y Registration No. 0060035, was admitte d to the practice of law i n Ohio in 1992. On October 13, 2020, we suspended her license on an interim bas is after she was convicted on a single fifth-degree-felony count of theft. In re Robinson , 161 Ohio St.3d 1272, 2020-Ohio-4868, 164 N.E.3d 499.S UPREME C OURT OF O HIO

2 {¶ 2} In a June 10, 2020 complaint, relator, Lorain County Bar Association, alleged that the conduct underlying Robinson’s the ft conviction— overbilling for the work she performed as a court-appointed att orney—violated six professional-conduc t rules. The parties submitted stipulat ions of fact, misconduct, and aggrava ting and mitigating factors. They also jointly recommended that Robinson be suspended from the practice of law for two years

with no credit for the time serve d under her interim felony sus pension, be required to pay additional restitution beyond that which was ordered in her criminal case, serve a two-year period of monitored probation upon her reinsta tement, and comply with additional restric tions on her future court-appoint ed work. {¶ 3} After a hearing, a three-member panel of the Board of Professio nal Conduct issued a report in which it found that Robinson committ ed the charged

misconduct and recommended a sanc tion that varied from the part ies’ agreed sanction—namely, that the second year of Robinson’s suspension be conditionally stayed. Further, the panel di d not recommend any period of mon itored probation upon Robinson’s reinstatement. The board adopted the panel’s re port in its entirety and no objections have been filed. {¶ 4} After reviewing the record in th is case, we adopt the board’s findings of misconduct and recommended sanction. Stipulated Facts and Misconduct {¶ 5} In 2019, relator began investigating allegations that Robinson had overbilled for work she had performed as a court-appointed atto rney in the Lorain County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, from 2016 thro ugh 2019. In August 2020, approximately two mont hs after relator filed the c omplaint in this matter, Robinson pleaded guilty to a single fifth-degree-felony count of theft that arose from the same underlying conduct. On October 7, 2020, th e trial court sentenced Robinson to three years of community control and orde red her to make restitution of $29,319 to Lorain County within one year and abs tain from seekingJanuary Term, 2021

3 court-appointed legal work for two years. State v. Robinson , Lorain C.P. No. 20CR102843 (Oct. 7, 2020). {¶ 6} Robinson has admitted that she knowingly overbilled the Ohio Public Defender’s Office and Lorain County for court-appointed work that she performed from 2016 through 2019. I n her testimony before the hearing panel, she admitted that her fraudulent billing statements were submit ted to and approved by trial judges. Further, Robinson acknowledged that she made false statements to nonjudicial personne l, and the stipulated exhibit s establish that her fraudulent billing statements were received and certified by th e county auditor before the county issued payment to her. She explained that at the time of her misconduct, she was experiencing a series of severe medical pro blems and did not

have sufficient health insurance to cover the costs of her trea tment. Robinson’s medical conditions have since stabilized, and she has obtained full-time employment as a condition of her community control. {¶ 7} The parties stipulated and the board found that Robinson’s cond uct violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.5(a) (prohibiting a lawyer from making an agreement for, charging, or collecting an illegal or clearly excessive fee), 3 .3(a)(1) (prohibiting a lawyer from knowingly making a false statement of fact or law t o a tribunal), 4.1(a) (prohibiting a lawyer from knowingly making a false stat ement of material fact or law to a third person), 8.4(b) (prohibiting a lawyer fr om committing an illegal act that reflects adversel y on the lawyer’s honesty or trustworthiness), 8.4(c) (prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentati on), and 8.4(d) (prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct that is prej udicial to the administration o f justice). {¶ 8} We adopt these findi ngs of misconduct.

Sanction {¶ 9} When imposing sanctions for atto rney misconduct, we consider al l relevant factors, including the e thical duties that the lawyer violated, theS UPREME C OURT OF O HIO

4 aggravating and mitigating factors listed in Gov.Bar R. V(13), and the sanctions imposed in similar cases. {¶ 10} Three aggravating factors are present and were stipulated to by the parties: Robinson acted with a d ishonest or selfish motive, com mitted multiple offenses, and engaged in a pattern of misconduct. See Gov.Bar R. V(13)(B)(2), (3), and (4). As for mitigating factors, the parties stipulate d that Robinson (1) lacks a prior disciplinary record, (2) made a timely, good fait h effort to make partial restitution by payin g the $29,319 in restitution ordere d in her criminal case, (3) made full and free disclosure to the board and exhibi ted a cooperative attitude toward the criminal and disciplinary processes, (4) s ubmitted evidence of her good character and reputation in the legal community, and ( 5) had other penalties or sanctions impos ed for her criminal conduct. See Gov.Bar R. V(13)(C)(1), (3), (4), (5), and (6). In addition to adopting t hose mitigating factors, the board found that Robinson had fully acknowledged t he wrongful nature of her misconduct, was “exceedingly remorseful” for her actions, and had agreed to pay an additional $50,000 in restitution; she testifi ed that she had submitted this money to her couns el prior to her disciplinary h earing. {¶ 11} The parties stipulated that R obinson should be suspended for tw o years with no credit for the time served under her interim susp ension and be required to pay $50,000 in restitution in addition to the $29,3 19 that she was ordered to pay in her criminal case. They also agreed that she should be required to serve a two-year period of monitored probation with addition al restrictions on her future court-appointed work. {¶ 12} In determining the appropriate sanction to recommend for Robinson’s misconduct, the board considered Dayton Bar Assn. v. Rogers , 116 Ohio St.3d 99, 2007-Ohio-5544, 876 N.E.2d 923, and Disciplinary Counsel v.

Smith , 152 Ohio St.3d 337, 2017-Ohio-9087, 96 N.E.3d 234. In each o f those cases, we imposed a two-year suspension on an attorney who, lik e Robinson,January Term, 2021

5 fraudulently billed clients for wo rk that they did not perform. The board, however, distinguished those cases on the ground that both Roge rs and Smith refused to acknowledge the wron gful nature of their misconduct, while Robinson fully acknowledged the wrongful ness of her misconduct and expre ssed remorse

for her actions. See Rogers at ¶ 16; Smith at ¶ 36. Moreover, Rogers had previously been publicly repr imanded for similar misconduct, Rogers at ¶ 1, 18, and Smith had failed to make any restitution by the time of his disciplinary hearing, Smith at ¶ 36. {¶ 13} The board found that Robinson’s c onduct was most comparable to two other cases cited by the parties: Toledo Bar Assn. v. Stahlbush , 126 Ohio St.3d 366, 2010-Ohio-3823, 933 N.E.2d 1091, and Dayton Bar Assn. v. Swift , 142 Ohio St.3d 476, 2014-Ohio-4835, 33 N.E.3d 1. Like Robinson, St ahlbush

submitted false and fraudulent b illing statements for court-app ointed work. Stahlbush stipulated that she billed the county more than 3,400 hours in a single year and that she had submitted numerous billing statements in which she averred that she had worked 14 to 24 hours in a day. Stahlbush at ¶ 3. We found that Stahlbush had acted with a dishonest or selfish motive, committ ed multiple offenses, and engaged in a patte rn of misconduct. However, she had no prior disciplinary record, submitted positive character references, m ade an undisclosed amount of restitution, and had been denied additional court-app ointed work in the juvenile court, which had been her primary source of income. Id . at ¶ 7-8. We suspended Stahlbush from the practice of law for two years, wit h the second year stayed on the conditions that she submit to one year of monitor ed probation and

commit no further ethical violations. Id. at ¶ 17. {¶ 14} Swift submitted inflated billing statements for court-appointed services in four separate coun ties over a two-and-a-half-year p eriod. Like Robinson, he was found to have know ingly made false statements of material fact to a tribunal and third persons, engaged in conduct involving d ishonesty, fraud,S UPREME C OURT OF O HIO

6 deceit, or misrepresentation, and engaged in conduct that was p rejudicial to the administration of justice. Althou gh Swift was not convicted of a crime, we found that his misconduct adversely reflected on his fitness to pract ice law. Swift at ¶ 15, 17. In addition to the same aggravating factors that are present in Robinson’s case, Swift failed to make restitution prior to his disciplinary hearing—though the parties ultimately stipulated that he owed $ 50,000 in

restitution. Id. at ¶ 17-20. {¶ 15} In accord with Stahlbush , we suspended Swift for two years with the second year stayed on the conditions that he submit to a on e-year period of monitored probation and engage in no further misconduct. We al so conditioned

his reinstatement on his payment of $50,000 in restitution. Id. at ¶ 23. {¶ 16} On the authority of Stahlbush and Swift , the board recommends that we suspend Robinson from the practice of law for two years, wit h no credit for

the time served under her interim felony suspension but with th e second year stayed on conditions that include the payment of $50,000 in res titution, in addition to the $29,319 already paid as part of her criminal se ntence. Based on the panel’s observation of Robinson’s testimony, the panel foun d and the board agreed that it is highly unlikely that Robinson will reoffend i n this manner and therefore rejected the parties’ stipulation that she be require d to serve two years of monitored probation. They did, however, adopt the parties’ rec ommendations that she be required to comply with all orders in her criminal case and that upon Robinson’s resumption of court-ap pointed work, she be required to furnish copies of her billing statements for that work to relator for a period of one year. {¶ 17} Here, Robinson’s misconduct cau sed financial harm to the taxpayers of Lorain County, and her dishonesty cast a negative light on the legal profession as a whole. After thor oughly reviewing the board’s findings of fact and conclusions of law, the applicable aggravating and mitigati ng factors, and theJanuary Term, 2021

7 sanctions we have imposed for c omparable misconduct, we believe that the

board’s recommended sanction is th e appropriate sanction in thi s case. Conclusion {¶ 18} Accordingly, Jeanette Michele Robinson is suspended from the practice of law in Ohio for two years, with no credit for the t ime served under the interim felony suspension imposed on October 13, 2020, but with the second year stayed on the conditions that she (1) comply with all orders of the Lorain County Court of Common Pleas in case No. 20CR102843, (2) pay $50,000 i n restitution to Lorain County in addition to the $29,319 in restitution orde red in her criminal case, and (3) engage in no further misconduct. If Robinson fai ls to comply with any condition of the stay, the stay will be lifted and she will serve the full twoyear suspension. For the first year that Robinson serves as co urt-appointed counsel following her reinstateme nt to the practice of law, she shall furnish copies of all billing statements for her court-appointed work to relat or. Costs are taxed

to Robinson. Judgment accordingly.

O’C ONNOR , C.J., and K ENNEDY , F ISCHER , D E W INE , D ONNELLY , S TEWART , and B RUNNER , JJ., concur.

_________________ O’Toole, McLaughlin, Dooley & Pecora Co., L.P.A., Matthew A. Do oley, and Michael R. Briach, for relator. Milano Attorneys at Law, Jay Milano, and Kate Pruchnicki, for respondent.

_________________