Court Opinion

ID: 9965336
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-05-02 13:07:26.104561+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:24:54.143747
License: Public Domain

[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} 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 attorney-
discipline 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.

                                         2
                               January Term, 2024

                                 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 substance-
abuse 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

                                         3
                               SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

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 self-
report 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

                                          4
                                January Term, 2024

       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

                                          5
                             SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

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-Ohio-
927, 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.

                                          6
                                January Term, 2024

        {¶ 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 substance-
use 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

                                         7
                              SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

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

                                           8
                                January Term, 2024

recommended sanction of an indefinite suspension with credit for the time served
under his interim felony suspension and with additional recovery-related conditions
on his reinstatement 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.
                               _________________

                                          9