Cincinnati Bar Association v. Glaser

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

Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Glaser, Slip Opinion No. 2016-Ohio-3052.]

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. 2016-OHIO-3052

CINCINNATI BAR ASSOCIATION v. GLASER.

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

may be cited as Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Glaser, Slip Opinion

No. 2016-Ohio-3052.]

Attorneys—Misconduct—Committing an illegal act that reflects adversely on the

lawyer’s honesty or trustworthiness—Attorney convicted of attempting to

permit drug use, a misdemeanor—Six-month suspension, stayed on

conditions.

(No. 2015-2008—Submitted January 27, 2016—Decided May 19, 2016.)

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

Court, No. 2014-101.

__________________

Per Curiam.

{¶ 1} Respondent, Angela Joy Glaser of Cincinnati, Ohio, Attorney

Registration No. 0091318, was admitted to the practice of law in 2013. In

December 2014, relator, Cincinnati Bar Association, charged her with violating

SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(b) (prohibiting a lawyer from committing an illegal act that

reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty or trustworthiness) after she was

convicted of attempting to permit drug abuse in her home, a first-degree

misdemeanor. Based on the parties’ factual stipulations and other evidence

presented at a hearing before a three-member panel of the Board of Professional

Conduct, the board found that she engaged in the charged misconduct and

recommended that we sanction her with a six-month suspension, stayed on

conditions. Neither party has filed objections to the board’s report and

recommendation.

{¶ 2} Based on our review of the record, we adopt the board’s findings of

misconduct and agree that its recommended sanction is appropriate in this case.

Misconduct

{¶ 3} In 2011, while in law school, Glaser leased a house in Cincinnati. Her

minor daughter and then long-time boyfriend, Jackie Sanders, lived in the home

with her, although Sanders’s name was not on the lease. Glaser claims that while

she was in school, her relationship with Sanders began deteriorating: he was not

permanently employed, he was drinking heavily, and he could be abusive to her at

times. In 2013, after graduating from law school, Glaser began working at the

Hamilton County Public Defender’s Office. She claims that at that point, she and

Sanders were essentially living in separate areas of the house and that she planned

on moving out.

{¶ 4} However, in January 2014, the police conducted a search of the home

and found various illegal drugs, two digital scales, and a gun registered in Glaser’s

name that was stuffed with heroin. Sanders was later charged with and pled guilty

to several felonies, including trafficking in and possession of heroin, trafficking in

cocaine, and having a weapon while under a disability. He was sentenced to 24

months in prison. Glaser was charged with knowingly permitting drug abuse on

2

January Term, 2016

her premises, a fifth-degree felony, but she ultimately pled guilty to the lesser

attempt charge. Following her plea, she was sentenced to pay a $100 fine.

{¶ 5} At her disciplinary hearing, Glaser acknowledged that she had had

concerns about the number of people that Sanders was permitting to come into the

basement area of her home and about whether those individuals were engaging in

any criminal activity. But she further testified that she had not known that Sanders

had cocaine or heroin in the home, that she had not placed the heroin in her gun,

and that she had never seen the digital scales in her house. She also testified that

she has no plans to continue her relationship with Sanders once he is released from

prison.

{¶ 6} Based on the hearing evidence and Glaser’s misdemeanor conviction,

the board found that she had violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(b). During the hearing,

relator added a charge under Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(h) (prohibiting a lawyer from

engaging in conduct that adversely reflects on the lawyer’s fitness to practice law),

but the panel dismissed the new allegation. We agree with the board’s finding of a

Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(b) violation and with the decision to dismiss the new charge.

Sanction

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

several relevant factors, including the ethical duties that the lawyer violated, the

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

imposed in similar cases.

Aggravating and mitigating factors

{¶ 8} The board found no aggravating factors in this case. In mitigation,

the board recognized that Glaser has no prior discipline, she had a cooperative

attitude toward the disciplinary process, she self-reported her conduct to

disciplinary authorities, she cooperated in Sanders’s prosecution, and she submitted

several character references. See Gov.Bar R. V(13)(C)(1), (4), and (5). We concur.

3

SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

Applicable precedent

{¶ 9} In crafting its recommended sanction, the board primarily analyzed

two similar cases in which we disciplined attorneys after they were convicted of

first-degree misdemeanors. First, in Disciplinary Counsel v. Grigsby, 128 Ohio

St.3d 413, 2011-Ohio-1446, 945 N.E.2d 512, we imposed a conditionally stayed

18-month suspension on an attorney who was convicted on a charge of misuse of a

credit card arising from her unauthorized use of an employer’s corporate credit card

to cover her personal expenses. Id. at ¶ 3-4, 11. Second, in Disciplinary Counsel

v. Grubb, 142 Ohio St.3d 521, 2015-Ohio-1349, 33 N.E.3d 40, we imposed a stayed

six-month suspension on an attorney who was convicted on a charge of complicity

to commit workers’ compensation fraud for providing funds to a client while that

client was also receiving temporary-total-disability benefits. Id. at ¶ 3-4, 10. Both

cases involved similar mitigating factors, including no prior discipline and full

cooperation in the disciplinary process. Grigsby at ¶ 7; Grubb at ¶ 7.

{¶ 10} We imposed a longer suspension in Grigsby than in Grubb, however,

because the attorney in Grigsby had also violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(c) (prohibiting

a lawyer from engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or

misrepresentation). Consequently, we also found that the attorney’s dishonesty in

Grigsby was an aggravating factor. See Grigsby at ¶ 5, 7. In contrast, we found no

dishonest conduct in Grubb, and indeed, there were no aggravating factors in that

case. Accordingly, the circumstances in Grubb warranted the lesser six-month

stayed suspension. See Grubb at ¶ 8-9.

{¶ 11} We agree with the board that Grubb is more analogous here. Glaser

has not violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(c), there has been no finding of dishonest or

deceitful conduct, and there are no aggravating factors in this case. Thus, consistent

with Grubb, a six-month suspension, stayed on conditions, is appropriate. See also

Disciplinary Counsel v. Carroll, 106 Ohio St.3d 84, 2005-Ohio-3805, 831 N.E.2d

1000, ¶ 6, 9-10, 12, 14-15 (stayed six-month suspension for attorney convicted of

4

January Term, 2016

a misdemeanor for making misrepresentations on his timesheets when significant

mitigating factors and no aggravating factors were present).

Conclusion

{¶ 12} Having considered Glaser’s misconduct, the mitigating factors, the

absence of any aggravating factors, and the sanctions imposed in comparable cases,

we adopt the board’s recommended sanction. Accordingly, Angela Joy Glaser is

hereby suspended from the practice of law for six months, with the entire

suspension stayed on the conditions that she (1) submit to an assessment for

domestic abuse by a professional affiliated with the Ohio Lawyers Assistance

Program or by another qualified professional and comply with any

recommendations made as a result of that assessment, (2) submit to monitoring by

an attorney due to Glaser’s new-lawyer status, (3) refrain from any further

misconduct, and (4) pay the costs of these proceedings. If Glaser fails to comply

with the conditions of the stay, the stay shall be lifted and she shall serve the full

six-month suspension. Costs are taxed to Glaser.

Judgment accordingly.

O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, KENNEDY,

FRENCH, and O’NEILL, JJ., concur.

_________________

Edwin W. Patterson III, General Counsel; and Nancy J. Gill, for relator.

William B. Strubbe, for respondent.

_________________

5