[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as
Mahoning Cty. Bar Assn. v. Rohrbaugh, Slip Opinion No. 

.]




                                        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. 

             MAHONING COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION v. ROHRBAUGH.
  [Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it
  may be cited as Mahoning Cty. Bar Assn. v. Rohrbaugh, Slip Opinion No.
                                   

.]
Attorneys—Misconduct—Attorney violated the Rules of Professional Conduct by
        registering a fictitious entity in Ohio as part of a financial-crimes scheme
        culminating in his felony convictions—Indefinite suspension with credit for
        time served under interim felony suspension.
  (No. 2024-1105—Submitted September 3, 2024—Decided October 29, 2024.)
   ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Professional Conduct of the Supreme
                                 Court, No. 2024-002.
                                 __________________
        The per curiam opinion below was joined by DEWINE, DONNELLY,
STEWART, and DETERS, JJ. KENNEDY, C.J., and FISCHER, J., concurred in part and
dissented in part and would not award credit for time served under the interim
felony suspension. BRUNNER, J., did not participate.
                             SUPREME COURT OF OHIO




       Per Curiam.
       {¶ 1} Respondent, Robert James Rohrbaugh II, of Youngstown, Ohio,
Attorney 

 was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in
1999. On February 15, 2023, this court suspended Rohrbaugh’s license on an
interim basis following his felony convictions on four counts related to his
involvement in a scheme aimed at obtaining fraudulent federal-income-tax refunds.
See In re Rohrbaugh, 

. That suspension remains in effect.
       {¶ 2} In a January 2024 complaint, relator, the Mahoning County Bar
Association, charged Rohrbaugh with five violations of the Rules of Professional
Conduct arising from conduct related to his financial crimes. Relator subsequently
dismissed three of the charged violations.
       {¶ 3} The parties submitted stipulations of fact, misconduct, and
aggravating and mitigating factors, and they jointly recommended that Rohrbaugh
serve an indefinite suspension with credit for time served under the February 2023
interim felony suspension. The parties stipulated and a three-member panel of the
Board of Professional Conduct found that Rohrbaugh had committed the two
remaining violations charged in the complaint. The panel agreed with the parties’
joint recommendation that an indefinite suspension from the practice of law with
credit for time served under the February 2023 interim felony suspension is the
appropriate sanction for Rohrbaugh’s misconduct. The board adopted the panel’s
findings of fact and misconduct and its recommended sanction. The parties filed a
joint waiver of objections to the board’s report.
       {¶ 4} After reviewing the record and our precedent, we adopt the board’s
findings of misconduct and recommended sanction.
                                 MISCONDUCT
       {¶ 5} In 2020, a federal grand jury in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Ohio returned an indictment, followed by a superseding




                                          2
                                January Term, 2024



indictment, charging Rohrbaugh with (1) conspiracy to commit offenses against the
United States, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 371, (2) aiding and abetting in the theft of
government property, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 641 and 2, (3) aiding and abetting
in the filing of false claims against the United States, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 287
and 2, (4) conspiracy to commit money laundering, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
1956(h), and (5) filing a false income-tax return, in violation of 26 U.S.C. 7206(1).
See United States v. Rohrbaugh, N.D. Ohio No. 4:20-CR-00342-3 (Sept. 24, 2020).
The charges stemmed from a scheme in which Rohrbaugh and his coconspirators
created fictious business entities and trusts, prepared and filed federal corporate-
and estate-tax returns falsely reporting large tax withholdings for those entities and
trusts, and received tax-refund checks to which they were not entitled.
       {¶ 6} At his disciplinary hearing, Rohrbaugh testified that a jury acquitted
him of the count charging him with filing a false tax return but deadlocked on the
remaining four counts, but after a second jury trial, he was convicted of the
remaining charges. He was sentenced to 52 months’ imprisonment on each count,
with each term to be served concurrently. Rohrbaugh, N.D. Ohio No. 4:20-CR-
00342-3 (June 16, 2023). Rorhbaugh was also sentenced to a period of postrelease
supervision—three years for each of the four counts on which he was convicted,
with each term to be served concurrently. 

 He was also ordered to pay a special
assessment of $400 and to pay restitution in the amount of $569,938.81 to the IRS
by paying 25 percent of his gross income each month through the Federal Bureau
of Prisons Inmate Financial Responsibility Program. 

 If any of the restitution
owed remains due after his release from prison, Rohrbaugh is ordered to pay 10
percent of his gross monthly income “during the term of [his] supervised release
and thereafter as prescribed by law.” 

 Rohrbaugh did not appeal his convictions.
       {¶ 7} As a result of Rohrbaugh’s convictions, on February 15, 2023, we
imposed an interim felony suspension pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(18)(A)(1)(a). In
re Rohrbaugh, 

.



                                          3
                             SUPREME COURT OF OHIO




       {¶ 8} At his disciplinary hearing, Rohrbaugh testified that the majority of
the criminal conduct—creating the fictitious entities and filing false tax returns—
occurred before he joined the conspiracy, and he claimed that all he did was register
one of the fictitious businesses in Ohio. He asserted that if he had known that the
primary charge against him was based only on registering that entity, he would have
accepted responsibility and pleaded guilty.
       {¶ 9} Rohrbaugh also testified about the effect his convictions have had on
him and his family. With Rohrbaugh out of work, his family had to sell everything
they had, including their furniture, clothes, and shoes. Despite this, Rohrbaugh said
he felt “pretty good” in learning that he did not really need everything he used to
have and that he could live with far less.
       {¶ 10} Rohrbaugh expressed remorse for his conduct in bringing disrepute
on the legal profession.     He recognized that being a lawyer was a “great
opportunity” and that he “blew it at one point in time,” letting his family down and
damaging the image of the legal profession.
       {¶ 11} Since being in prison, Rohrbaugh has participated in a residential
substance-abuse-treatment program, been significantly involved in spiritual groups
and activities, and stayed sober. He has also learned new skills in plumbing and
hopes those skills will help him secure a commercial-plumbing job after his release
from prison. Rohrbaugh is also paying restitution, but because the amount he is
obligated to pay each month is more than his monthly prison income, his family
has to pay the difference.
       {¶ 12} Rohrbaugh submitted eight letters attesting to his good character and
reputation. The authors of the letters range from judges to a former employee and
a former coworker, and they highlight Rohrbaugh’s compassion, his skills as an
attorney, and his being deserving of a second chance.
       {¶ 13} The board found that Rohrbaugh’s criminal conduct was
“aberational,” and it noted that the trial-court judge had acknowledged Rohrbaugh’s




                                             4
                                January Term, 2024



acceptance of responsibility for his crimes by giving him a lesser sentence, either
through downward deviation or point reduction under the sentencing guidelines.
The board also noted that Rohrbaugh did not establish any of the fictitious entities
or obtain federal-employer-identification numbers for the fictitious entities; instead,
his criminal conduct was limited to registering one of the entities in Ohio.
       {¶ 14} Based on Rohrbaugh’s conduct, the parties stipulated and the board
found that Rohrbaugh violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(b) (prohibiting a lawyer from
committing an illegal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty or
trustworthiness) and 8.4(c) (prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct
involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation).
                                    SANCTION
       {¶ 15} When imposing sanctions for attorney misconduct, we consider all
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. We have consistently recognized that “the goal of
disciplinary proceedings is not to punish the errant lawyer, but to protect the
public.”   Toledo Bar Assn. v. Hales, 

, ¶ 21.             And “[w]hile
consistency is also a goal, ‘we examine each case individually and impose the
discipline we believe appropriate based on the unique circumstances of each case.’
” 

 quoting In re Disciplinary Action Against Ruffenach, 

(Minn. 1992).
       {¶ 16} In terms of aggravating factors, the parties stipulated and the board
found that Rohrbaugh exhibited a dishonest or selfish motive, see Gov.Bar R.
V(13)(B)(2), and that he committed multiple offenses, see Gov.Bar R. V(13)(B)(4).
In addition, the parties stipulated and the board found four mitigating factors
present: the absence of prior discipline, see Gov.Bar R. V(13)(C)(1), full and free
disclosure to the board and a cooperative attitude toward the disciplinary
proceedings, see Gov.Bar R. V(13)(C)(4), good character and reputation, see



                                          5
                             SUPREME COURT OF OHIO




Gov.Bar R. V(13)(C)(5), and the imposition of other penalties, see Gov.Bar R.
V(13)(C)(6).
        {¶ 17} The board found the following additional factors in mitigation: (1)
Rohrbaugh promptly reported his conviction to relator; (2) his culpability was
“significantly lesser in degree, scope, and motivation” than that of his
coconspirators; (3) his failure to plead guilty was justified; (4) his sentence and
decision not to appeal his convictions reflect an acceptance of responsibility for his
conduct; (5) his incarceration, payment of restitution, and “suffering of other
consequences” further his rehabilitation, see Gov.Bar R. V(13)(C)(8); and (6) his
attitude toward his criminal and ethical wrongdoing, the criminal and disciplinary
proceedings against him, and his future and that of his family is healthy and
realistic.
        {¶ 18} The parties jointly recommended that Rohrbaugh be indefinitely
suspended for his misconduct with credit for time served under his interim felony
suspension.
        {¶ 19} The board agrees that an indefinite suspension with credit for time
served under the interim felony suspension is the appropriate sanction. In coming
to that conclusion, the board cited numerous cases in which this court imposed an
indefinite suspension on attorneys whose misconduct involved either federal
financial crimes or federal tax crimes. See Disciplinary Counsel v. George, 2020-
Ohio-2902 (conspiracy to commit wire fraud and securities fraud); Cleveland
Metro. Bar Assn. v. King, 

 (money laundering and attempted
money laundering); Disciplinary Counsel v. Rosenfield, 

 (willfully
failing to withhold, account for, and pay federal-income taxes for law-firm
employees); Disciplinary Counsel v. Smith, 

 (conspiring to defraud
the IRS, making false tax returns, and corruptly endeavoring to obstruct and impede
an IRS investigation); Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Kellogg, 

 (money
laundering, conspiracy to commit money laundering, and conspiracy to obstruct




                                          6
                               January Term, 2024



proceedings before two federal agencies); Disciplinary Counsel v. Gittinger, 2010-
Ohio-1830 (conspiracy to commit bank fraud and money laundering); Disciplinary
Counsel v. Bennett, 

 (unlawfully structuring financial transactions);
Ohio State Bar Assn. v. Tzagournis, 

 (1976) (willfully and
knowingly failing to make a federal income-tax return); Ohio State Bar Assn. v.
Vaporis, 

 (1976) (same); Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Stein, 

 (1972) (same); Dayton Bar Assn. v. Carter, 

 (1974) (tax
evasion by filing fraudulent tax returns); Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Bowman, 

 (1968) (same).
       {¶ 20} After reviewing these cases, in which we disciplined attorneys who
were convicted of various federal financial crimes, we agree with the board that an
indefinite suspension is the appropriate sanction for Rohrbaugh. Our decisions in
George and King provide guideposts for our decision here.
       {¶ 21} In George, the attorney was convicted of conspiracy to commit wire
fraud and securities fraud for participating in a scheme aimed at defrauding
investors. He violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(b), 8.4(c), and 8.4(h) (prohibiting a lawyer
from engaging in conduct that adversely reflects on the lawyer’s fitness to practice
law). The aggravating factors were a history of prior discipline, a pattern of
misconduct, multiple offenses, and harm to vulnerable persons. George at ¶ 11. In
mitigation, the attorney exhibited a cooperative attitude toward the disciplinary
proceedings, submitted numerous letters as evidence of his good character and
reputation, and had other penalties or sanctions imposed in the form of his prison
sentence and a restitution order. 

 We determined that an indefinite suspension
was the appropriate sanction, and in doing so, we considered the attorney’s candor
during his criminal and disciplinary proceedings, his genuine remorse, and the
significant evidence of his good character and reputation and extensive community
involvement. Id. at ¶ 19.




                                         7
                             SUPREME COURT OF OHIO




       {¶ 22} In King, the attorney was convicted of money laundering and
attempted money laundering after accepting and issuing checks related to drug
trafficking. The attorney violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(b), 8.4(c), and 8.4(h). King,

. A single aggravating factor was present—a dishonest or
selfish motive. Id. at ¶ 11. In mitigation, the attorney cooperated with the
disciplinary investigation, presented evidence of his good character and skills as a
lawyer, had other penalties or sanctions imposed for his criminal conduct, and
completed an alcohol-and-drug treatment program as part of his rehabilitation. Id.
at ¶ 8. The board recommended that the attorney be disbarred, but we disagreed.
Id. at ¶ 19.     Based on the facts and significant mitigating evidence, we
acknowledged the attorney’s potential to rehabilitate himself and return to the
practice of law. We therefore concluded that an indefinite suspension was the
appropriate sanction. Id. at ¶ 19-20.
       {¶ 23} These cases and others cited by the board militate in favor of
imposing an indefinite suspension here. Like the attorney in George, Rohrbaugh
played a role in a criminal scheme rooted in fraud. Like the attorney in George,
Rohrbaugh cooperated in the disciplinary proceedings, presented evidence of his
good character and reputation, and had other penalties or sanctions imposed for his
misconduct, including a prison sentence and an order to pay restitution. Rohrbaugh
had additional mitigation that was not present in George, and unlike the attorney in
that case, Rohrbaugh did not violate Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(h).
       {¶ 24} The facts of King similarly aid our decision here. Like Rohrbaugh,
the attorney in King violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(b) and 8.4(c), although the attorney
in that case also violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(h). Rohrbaugh and the attorney in King
further share the aggravating factor of a dishonest or selfish motive and mitigating
factors of cooperating in the disciplinary proceedings, presenting evidence of their
good character and reputation, and having other penalties or sanctions imposed for
their misconduct. Our focus in King on the attorney’s potential for rehabilitation is




                                         8
                                January Term, 2024



also instructive here. Like the attorney in that case, Rohrbaugh has taken steps to
rehabilitate himself by attending a substance-abuse-treatment program, maintaining
his sobriety, participating in spiritual groups and activities, and focusing on
acquiring skills to help him find a job upon his release from prison.
       {¶ 25} We recognize that Rohrbaugh has a 52-month sentence to serve
before there is any chance that he will be able to return to the practice of law. But
given the facts of this case and the mitigation presented here, we will not foreclose
that possibility. For this reason, an indefinite suspension is the appropriate sanction
for Rohrbaugh’s misconduct.
       {¶ 26} We have recognized that credit for time served under an interim
felony suspension may be appropriate when “the disciplined lawyer[] presented
credible evidence of remorse and acceptance of responsibility, convincing us that
the criminal conduct was a one-time, never-to-be-repeated mistake.” Disciplinary
Counsel v. Margolis, 

, ¶ 26. Rohrbaugh’s lesser culpability than
that of his coconspirators and his show of remorse and acceptance of responsibility
for his crimes persuade us that he will be able to resume a law-abiding life upon his
release from prison. We therefore give him the benefit of credit for time served
under his interim felony suspension.
       {¶ 27} Having reviewed the record and our precedent, we conclude that an
indefinite suspension with credit for the time served under his interim felony
suspension is the appropriate sanction for Rohrbaugh’s misconduct in this case.
                                  CONCLUSION
       {¶ 28} Accordingly, Robert James Rohrbaugh II is indefinitely suspended
from the practice of law with credit for time served under his February 15, 2023
interim felony suspension. Costs are taxed to Rohrbaugh.
                                                              Judgment accordingly.
                               __________________
       J. Michael Thompson, Bar Counsel, for relator.



                                          9
                    SUPREME COURT OF OHIO




John B. Juhasz, for respondent.
                      __________________




                                  10