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

Stahlbush, Toledo Bar Assn. v.
126 Ohio St.3d 366, 2010-Ohio-3823. Decided 8/24/2010.
Case Summaries- 322
Respondent inflated her billable hours for work as a court-appointed attorney in the juvenile and general
divisions of the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas. In 2007, the court personnel realized her billings
were very high: On at least three occasions, she billed more than 24 hours for a given day; on at least
five other occasions, she billed more than 20 hours for a given day; in several other occasions. Further
investigation revealed that on numerous other occasions she billed in excess of 14 and up to 19 hours a
day. When respondent failed to provide documents supporting her hours, the administrative judge
referred the matter to relator. On the third day of the disciplinary panel hearing, respondent and relator
stipulated that respondent had billed the county 3451.4 hours for court appointed counsel services in
2006, a portion of which were false and fraudulent, and that this conduct violated DR 1-102(A)(4),
1-102(A)(5), 1-102(A)(6), and 2-106(A). The panel accepted the stipulations and found that in addition
to billing more than 24 hours in a day, her submissions to the court aver that on numerous occasions
she worked 14 to 24 hours. In one 96 hour period, she billed 90.3 hours. In another 144-hour period
she billed 139.5 hours. Additionally, she admitted she had double-billed the general division of the court
for work in a capital case and she returned the unearned portion of those fees. The panel and board
concluded that respondent violated DR 1-102(A)(4), 1-102(A)(5), 1-102(A)(6), and 2-106(A). Relator
also originally charged respondent with Prof.Cond.R. 8.1(b), but the parties did not stipulate to and
the panel and board made no finding. In light of relator‘s apparent abandonment of the Prof.Cond.R.
8.1(b) claim and respondent‘s eventual cooperation, the court dismissed that count, but adopted the
board‘s findings of violations of DR 1-102(A)(4), 1-102(A)(5), 1-102(A)(6), and 2-106(A). Board
recommended suspension for two-years with one year stayed on conditions of one year monitored
probation and commit no further ethical violations. In aggravation, there are dishonest or selfish motive, a
pattern of misconduct, and multiple offenses. BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(b), (c), and (d). In mitigation,
the board found that respondent lacks a prior disciplinary record; is known by clients, peers, judges, and
magistrates as competent, hard-working, and represents clients zealously; and made restitution to the
general division for double billing in one case, has agreed to forgo any claim for $12,000 in attorney
fee applications submitted to the court in 2007; and has been denied court appointments in juvenile court,
her primary source of income. BCGD Proc.Reg.10(B)(2)(a), (e), (f). Relator sought a one-year
suspension with six months stayed; respondent argued for a two-year suspension, all stayed. The panel
and board, relying on Agopian (2006), Holland (2005), and Rohrer (2009), recommended a two-year
suspension with one year stayed on the condition of a one-year term of monitored probation. Respondent
objected to this recommended sanction on the grounds that it was excessive in view of the facts and case
law. The court noted that respondent had maintained that she worked every hour billed until relator
confronted her with the fact that she would have had to work an average of almost ten hours per day, 365
days a year to work all of the hours she billed. The court noted that ‗[d]espite respondent‘s arguments,
poor record keeping alone cannot explain overbilling of such magnitude.‖ The court agreed with the
board‘s recommended sanctioned and so ordered suspension a for two-years with one year stayed on
conditions of one year of monitored probation and commit no further ethical violations, with the
additional condition that respondent refrain from any further ethical violations.
Rules Violated: DR 1-102(A)(4), 1-102(A)(5), 1-102(A)(6), 2-106(A)
Aggravation: (b), (c), (d)
Mitigation: (a), (e), (f)
Prior Discipline: NO Procedure/ Process Issues: NO Criminal Conduct: NO
Public Official: NO Sanction: Two-year suspension, 12 months stayed