The Ohio Supreme Court has ruled to suspend attorney Deanna Robertson from practicing law for one year, with the suspension stayed on the condition that she engages in no further misconduct. This decision, made on October 29, 2026, follows allegations that Robertson overbilled for her services as court-appointed counsel in Cuyahoga County, affecting her clients and the public trust in the legal profession.

Robertson, who has been practicing law since 1991, faced a complaint from the disciplinary counsel, which accused her of dishonesty and misrepresentation related to her billing practices. The case highlights the importance of ethical conduct among attorneys, especially those serving indigent clients.

Background

The complaint against Robertson was filed on November 12, 2025, after an audit by the Ohio Public Defender (OPD) revealed significant discrepancies in her billing. The allegations included failing to properly track her time, double billing for tasks, and charging for work done by her support staff. In total, approximately 97 percent of Robertson's practice involved representing indigent criminal defendants as court-appointed counsel.

During the audit, it was discovered that Robertson had billed more than 24 hours in a single day on multiple occasions and had submitted inflated fee applications that did not reflect the actual time spent on cases. The audit covered fee applications submitted from March 2021 to April 2023, revealing a pattern of overbilling that raised serious ethical concerns.

The Ruling

The Ohio Supreme Court, in a per curiam opinion, adopted the findings of the Board of Professional Conduct, which recommended a one-year suspension with the entire suspension stayed. The court found clear evidence that Robertson had violated the Rules of Professional Conduct by certifying fee applications that were inflated due to inefficient timekeeping practices.

The court ruled, "We find that there is clear and convincing evidence demonstrating that Robertson violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(c) by certifying fee applications that were incorrect and inflated due to her inefficient and inaccurate timekeeping practices as well as her practice of billing for the time it took to download evidence from the internet and for time expended by her support staff."

Robertson's case was reviewed by a three-member panel, which confirmed her misconduct but also noted mitigating factors, such as her lack of prior disciplinary history and her cooperation during the proceedings. The panel emphasized that Robertson had made timely restitution of $16,324 to Cuyahoga County for the overbilled amounts.

Impact

This ruling serves as a reminder of the ethical responsibilities that attorneys have, particularly those representing vulnerable populations. The court's decision to impose a stayed suspension rather than a full suspension reflects the mitigating circumstances surrounding Robertson's case, including her long-standing reputation and character, as evidenced by testimonies from judges and attorneys who supported her.

The ruling also sets a precedent for how similar cases may be handled in the future, particularly in instances where attorneys demonstrate a willingness to rectify their mistakes and show good character. The court noted that the primary purpose of the disciplinary process is to protect the public from attorneys who are unworthy of trust, rather than to punish offenders.

What's Next

Robertson's suspension will remain stayed as long as she adheres to the condition of no further misconduct. If she fails to comply, the stay will be revoked, and she will serve the full one-year suspension. The court's decision underscores the importance of accountability in the legal profession and the need for attorneys to maintain ethical billing practices.