disciplinary handbook: volume v - Supreme Court - State of Ohio

Grigsby, Disciplinary Counsel v.
128 Ohio St.3d 413, 2011-Ohio-1446. Decided 3/31/2011.
Case Summaries- 106
Respondent self-reported her misdemeanor conviction for one count of misuse of a credit card arising
from her use of her employer‘s credit card for personal expenses. The parties stipulated to the facts and
misconduct. In August 2006, respondent began to misuse the corporate credit card issued to her by her
employer. At first, she would pay the bill each month from her personal funds, but as her financial
condition worsened, she was unable to make timely payments. In April 2009, respondent‘s employer
became aware of her conduct and terminated the employment. She was indicted on two felony
counts, but later pleaded guilty to a first-degree misdemeanor and was fined $100 and ordered to pay
$2,906 in restitution to the employer, both of which were timely paid. The panel and board found
violations of Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(b), 8.4(c), and 8.4(h). The Court adopted the findings of fact and
conclusions of law. In aggravation, respondent acted with a dishonest or selfish motive and engaged in
a pattern of misconduct spanning over two and a half years. BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(b) and (c). In
mitigation, respondent had no prior disciplinary record, made prompt payment of restitution, self-reported
her misconduct, and fully cooperated in the disciplinary process. BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(a), (c), and
(d). Respondent also elected not to practice law for more than one year after her termination, her actions
were out of character, and she was extremely remorseful. Due to significant mitigating factors, relator
recommended a one-year suspension with 6 months stayed. However, the panel and board
recommended an 18- month suspension, all stayed on the conditions that respondent be monitored by
relator in accord with Gov.Bar R. V(9) and that she commit no further misconduct. The court, citing
Agopian (2006), noted that the primary purpose of the disciplinary process is not to punish the offender,
but to protect the public. The court found that the board‘s recommendation of an 18-month suspension
provided greater protection to the public than did relator‘s recommended sanction. The court so
ordered a suspension for 18 months, all stayed on conditions that respondent serve 18 months of
supervised probation with a monitor and commit no further misconduct.
Rules Violated: Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(b), 8.4(c), 8.4(h)
Aggravation: (b), (c)
Mitigation: (a), (c), (d)
Prior Discipline: NO Procedure/ Process Issues: YES Criminal Conduct: YES
Public Official: NO Sanction: 18-month suspension, stayed