# Disciplinary Counsel v. Hartley

> Ohio Supreme Court · November 5, 2024 · 177 Ohio St. 3d 261

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10732162

## Case

- **Court:** Ohio Supreme Court
- **Decided:** November 5, 2024
- **Citations:** 177 Ohio St. 3d 261; 251 N.E.3d 156; 2024 Ohio 5232
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Cited by:** 1 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10732162

## Opinion text

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as
Disciplinary Counsel v. Hartley, Slip Opinion No. 2024-Ohio-5232.]

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. 2024-OHIO-5232
DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. HARTLEY.
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it
may be cited as Disciplinary Counsel v. Hartley, Slip Opinion No.
2024-Ohio-5232.]
Attorneys—Misconduct—Violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct,
including committing illegal acts adversely reflecting on the lawyer’s
honesty or trustworthiness— Indefinite suspension.
(No. 2024-1098—Submitted September 17, 2024—Decided November 5, 2024.)
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Professional Conduct of the Supreme
Court, No. 2023-001.
__________________
The per curiam opinion below was joined by KENNEDY, C.J., and FISCHER,
DEWINE, DONNELLY, STEWART, and DETERS, JJ. BRUNNER, J., did not participate.
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

Per Curiam.
{¶ 1} Respondent, Aaron Paul Hartley, of Kettering, Ohio, Attorney
Registration No. 0083170, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 2008. On
November 1, 2021, this court imposed an interim remedial suspension on Hartley
based on allegations that he had engaged in conduct that violated the Rules of
Professional Conduct and that he posed a substantial threat of serious harm to the
public. See Disciplinary Counsel v. Hartley, 2021-Ohio-3893. That suspension
remains in effect.
{¶ 2} In a February 2023 complaint, relator, disciplinary counsel, charged
Hartley with six violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct arising out of
conduct related to his misdemeanor convictions for assault, disorderly conduct,
telecommunications harassment, and menacing.
{¶ 3} The parties submitted stipulated exhibits and stipulations of fact and
aggravating and mitigating factors. After a hearing, a panel of the Board of
Professional Conduct found that Hartley committed all the violations charged in the
complaint and recommended as the appropriate sanction an indefinite suspension.
The panel further recommended that certain conditions be placed on Hartley’s
reinstatement to the practice of law. The board adopted the panel’s findings of fact
and misconduct and its recommended sanction. The parties did not file any
objections.
{¶ 4} After reviewing the record and our applicable precedent, we adopt the
board’s findings of misconduct and its recommended sanction.
I. MISCONDUCT
{¶ 5} Hartley’s misconduct underlying this case resulted in his convictions
for five offenses: assault, disorderly conduct on two separate occasions,
telecommunications harassment, and menacing.

2
January Term, 2024

A. Assault Conviction
{¶ 6} One night in January 2020, Hartley contacted L.T., whose adult son
Hartley had previously represented in a criminal matter. Over several hours,
Hartley and L.T. spoke by phone and exchanged text messages. Sounding
inebriated, Hartley repeatedly insisted that L.T. come to his home. L.T. declined,
but out of concern for his well-being, she said she would talk with him if he came
to her residence.
{¶ 7} When Hartley arrived at L.T.’s home, he was visibly intoxicated.
While at the home, Hartley made several inappropriate and sexually charged
comments about L.T.’s 13-year-old daughter, E.T. L.T. asked Hartley to leave, but
he refused. L.T. then attempted to call 9-1-1, prompting a physical struggle, during
which Hartley tried to take her cellphone. When police officers arrived, they
observed that Hartley’s speech was loud and slurred, that he was stumbling, and
that he smelled of alcohol.
{¶ 8} Hartley was charged with one count of assault, a first-degree
misdemeanor in violation of R.C. 2903.13. Shortly thereafter, L.T. filed for and
received a criminal protection order protecting E.T. and herself from Hartley. In
July 2021, a jury found Hartley guilty of the assault charge. He was sentenced to
180 days in jail with 170 days suspended, fined $1,000 with $850 suspended, and
ordered to serve three years of supervised probation; the probation conditions
included his payment of $2,000 in restitution for damage he had caused to L.T.’s
home. See State v. Hartley, Kettering M.C. No. 20CRB00148. The Second District
Court of Appeals affirmed Hartley’s conviction. State v. Hartley, 2023-Ohio-158
(2d Dist.).
B. First Disorderly-Conduct Conviction
{¶ 9} In August 2020, Hartley and his wife, C.H., had an argument at their
home. C.H. alleged that Hartley grabbed her, threw her down, and stepped on her
neck with his foot; Hartley denied these allegations. Two days later, Hartley was

3
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

charged with one count of domestic violence, a first-degree misdemeanor in
violation of R.C. 2919.25. Later that day, C.H. filed for and received an ex parte
domestic-violence civil protection order. The next week, C.H. filed for divorce.
{¶ 10} In March 2022, Hartley pleaded no contest to, and was found guilty
of, an amended charge of disorderly conduct, a fourth-degree misdemeanor in
violation of Kettering Cod.Ord. 648.04(a)(1). He was sentenced to a fully
suspended term of 30 days in jail, fined $250 with $200 suspended, and ordered to
serve three years of supervised probation with conditions. See State v. Hartley,
Kettering M.C. No. 20CRB00992.
C. Second Disorderly-Conduct Conviction
{¶ 11} In October 2020, Hartley was with his two daughters, eight-year-old
N.H. and six-year-old A.H., at his law office. According to a detective’s statement
of facts filed in the Kettering Municipal Court, Hartley grabbed N.H., who was
sitting in a chair, by the neck and squeezed her neck with his hand, leaving her
unable to breathe. The detective further stated that while holding her neck, Hartley
lifted N.H. from the chair and told her to “shut up” before releasing her.
{¶ 12} M.A.M., the girls’ mother, filed for and received an ex parte
domestic-violence civil protection order protecting N.H. and A.H. Hartley was
charged with one count of domestic violence, in violation of R.C. 2919.25; two
counts of child endangering, in violation of R.C. 2919.22(A) and (B); and one count
of assault, in violation of R.C. 2903.13—all first-degree misdemeanors. A jury
found Hartley not guilty of domestic violence and assault, and the prosecution
dismissed the R.C. 2919.22(B) child-endangering count. The jury could not reach
a verdict on the other child-endangering count, so the judge scheduled another trial
on that count.
{¶ 13} Before the second trial, Hartley pleaded no contest to an amended
charge of disorderly conduct, a fourth-degree misdemeanor in violation of
Kettering Cod.Ord. 648.04(a)(2). He was found guilty and sentenced to 30 days in

4
January Term, 2024

jail with 28 days suspended and credit for two days served. He was also fined $250
with $200 suspended and ordered to serve three years of supervised probation with
conditions. See State v. Hartley, Kettering M.C. No. 20CRB01311.
D. Telecommunications-Harassment Conviction
{¶ 14} In September and October 2021, Hartley made a series of posts and
comments aimed at C.H. on his public Facebook account, which featured more than
500 friends, including judges, Dayton-area attorneys, and clerks of court. These
posts included vulgar references to C.H.—calling her a “simple cunt,” a “whore,”
an “awful, evil, malicious, wicked[] woman,” a “sociopath,” and a “pathological
liar.” In one post, Hartley stated that he had a video of C.H. engaging in sexual
activity and threatened to release it, and in another post, he accused C.H. of
extortion and adultery. Hartley’s posts included hashtags of C.H.’s maiden,
married, and current last names.
{¶ 15} Based on Hartley’s Facebook posts, he was charged with one count
of violating a protection order, in violation of R.C. 2919.27(A)(1), and two counts
of telecommunications harassment, in violation of R.C. 2917.21(B)(1) and
(B)(2)—all first-degree misdemeanors. Hartley pleaded no contest to, and was
found guilty of, one of the telecommunications-harassment counts, and the
remaining charges were dismissed. He was sentenced to a fully suspended term of
180 days in jail, fined $1,000 with $950 suspended, and ordered to serve five years
of supervised probation with conditions. See State v. Hartley, Kettering M.C. No.
21CRB01432.
E. Menacing Conviction
{¶ 16} Hartley and M.A.M. entered into a shared-parenting agreement for
N.H. and A.H. in 2017. In August 2021, attorney Michelle Maciorowski, who
represented M.A.M. in the custody case, filed a motion to terminate the agreement
and to award M.A.M. full custody and child support. The motion alleged that
Hartley had “been acting erratically and ha[d] a history of making threats of

5
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

violence towards [M.A.M.] and the children’s step-father” and referred to the
criminal cases then pending against Hartley.
{¶ 17} After the motion was filed, Hartley made public threats against
Maciorowski on his Facebook account. In one post, Harley called Maciorowski a
“fat cunt” and a “moron” and stated that he was “still waiting on [her] thanks for a
bullet not being placed in [her] brain.” In other posts, he called her a “liar” and, in
explaining that she should not “fuck with” his family, wrote that “he [would]
fucking roll [her]” and added: “Words, actions, have consequence. :).”
{¶ 18} In response, Maciorowski filed a police report. She believed that
Hartley posed a “legitimate threat to her personal safety,” and she took preventative
actions in her personal life, such as installing new security equipment and warning
relatives about Hartley. Hartley was charged with three first-degree misdemeanor
counts of telecommunications harassment, in violation of R.C. 2917.21(A)(1),
(B)(1), and (B)(2), and one fourth-degree misdemeanor count of menacing, in
violation of R.C. 2903.22. Hartley pleaded no contest to, and was found guilty of,
the menacing count, and the remaining charges were dismissed. He was sentenced
to a fully suspended term of 30 days in jail, fined $250 with $200 suspended, and
ordered to serve three years of supervised probation with conditions. See State v.
Hartley, Kettering M.C. No. 21CRB01431.
F. Disciplinary Hearing
{¶ 19} Prior to Hartley’s disciplinary hearing, the parties jointly
recommended an indefinite suspension with credit for time served under his interim
remedial suspension. But at the hearing, counsel informed the panel that this was
no longer the case and relator argued against credit for time served.
{¶ 20} The panel noted that throughout the hearing, it was difficult to obtain
clear and definite answers from Hartley and he frequently rambled on and on
without directly answering a question. It stated that Hartley had offered alternative
explanations for the criminal charges filed against him; had placed blame for his

6
January Term, 2024

convictions on the victims of his criminal acts, the courts, or his counsel; and had
alleged that some of the charges were merely attempts to hurt him. The panel
described Hartley as an “arrogant, trying, taxing, and exasperating” witness. For
example, Hartley replied to a question from his counsel with the following
observation: “The law is lesser because I’m not a part of it now.”
{¶ 21} One topic of discussion at the hearing was the reports of a board-
appointed psychiatrist who had independently evaluated Hartley. Although those
medical reports were transmitted to this court under seal, at the hearing, Hartley’s
counsel discussed some of the findings contained in the reports and Hartley
described various mental-health conditions he had been diagnosed with. Those
conditions include autistic-spectrum disorder, “other specified personality disorder
with borderline features,” “other specified trauma and stressor-related disorder,”
and a “history of alcohol use disorder, in apparent remission.” Hartley testified that
some of these conditions, such as autism, had contributed to his criminal and rule-
violating misconduct.
G. Violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct
{¶ 22} Based on Hartley’s conduct, the board found that he committed five
violations of Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(b) (prohibiting a lawyer from committing an illegal
act that reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty or trustworthiness)—one each
for the misdemeanor convictions to which his misconduct had contributed—and
one violation of Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(h) (prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in
conduct that adversely reflects on the lawyer’s fitness to practice law). In accord
with Disciplinary Counsel v. Bricker, 2013-Ohio-3998, the board determined that
the facts underlying the combination of Hartley’s misdemeanor convictions and his
“threatening, vile, disparaging, vulgar, and demeaning statements” in his Facebook
posts about his ex-wife and her attorney were sufficiently egregious to prove the
Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(h) violation. We agree with these findings of fact and misconduct.

7
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

II. SANCTION
{¶ 23} 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, 2008-Ohio-6201, ¶ 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.’ ” Id., quoting In re Disciplinary Action Against Ruffenach, 486 N.W.2d 387,
390 (Minn. 1992).
{¶ 24} In terms of aggravating factors, the board found that Hartley had
engaged in a pattern of misconduct, committed multiple offenses, and harmed a
vulnerable victim of his misconduct. See Gov.Bar R. V(13)(B)(3), (4), and (8). In
addition, the board found two mitigating factors: the absence of prior discipline and
the imposition of other penalties. See Gov.Bar R. V(13)(C)(1) and (6). The board
found that Hartley’s mental-health conditions did not mitigate his misconduct under
Gov.Bar R. V(13)(C)(7), because there was no evidence of a sustained period of
successful treatment or certification from a qualified professional that Hartley will
be able to return to the competent, ethical, and professional practice of law.
{¶ 25} Further, although the board did not find that Hartley has a mental-
health, drug-abuse, or alcohol-abuse disorder requiring an impairment suspension
under Gov.Bar R. V(15)(C), the board also did not receive any evidence indicating
that Hartley is currently fit to engage in the competent, ethical, and professional
practice of law.
{¶ 26} The board ultimately determined that an indefinite suspension is the
appropriate sanction. In doing so, it relied on five cases: Columbus Bar Assn. v.
Lindner, 2017-Ohio-4362; Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn. v. Hurley, 2015-Ohio-1568;

8
January Term, 2024

Disciplinary Counsel v. LoDico, 2008-Ohio-2465; Disciplinary Counsel v.
Hiltbrand, 2006-Ohio-4250; and Columbus Bar Assn. v. Larkin, 2011-Ohio-762.
{¶ 27} We find Lindner particularly instructive here. In Lindner, the
attorney’s convictions arose from five separate incidents over a two-year period.
Lindner was charged with domestic violence and assault against her husband for
two of those incidents, but she later pleaded guilty to misdemeanor charges of
disorderly conduct. Lindner was also convicted of two counts of attempted child
endangerment—both second-degree misdemeanors—after her three-year-old
daughter was found bicycling outside alone while the temperature was in the
twenties and her eight-month-old daughter was found alone and crying
uncontrollably in Lindner’s home. Finally, Lindner was convicted in two separate
vehicular matters: in the first, she was convicted of leaving the scene of an accident
and falsification after she allegedly falsely claimed that her car had been stolen
several hours before the accident; in the second, she was charged with several
additional violations and was convicted of operating a vehicle while under the
influence of alcohol or drugs.
{¶ 28} The attorney in Lindner violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(b), 8.4(c)
(prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit,
or misrepresentation), and 8.4(h). The aggravating factors present were a dishonest
or selfish motive, a pattern of misconduct, multiple offenses, a lack of cooperation
in the disciplinary process, and harm to vulnerable victims. Id. at ¶ 10. As for
mitigation, Lindner had no prior discipline. Id. at ¶ 14. And even though Lindner
did not meet the requirements of Gov.Bar R. V(13)(C)(7) to establish her substance-
use disorder as a mitigating factor, we recognized that she was debilitated by
substance-abuse addiction and her dependence on her abusive husband. Id. We
ultimately determined that an indefinite suspension was the appropriate sanction.
Id. at ¶ 19. In doing so, we looked to cases involving attorneys whose untreated

9
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

substance-use disorders contributed to their multiple criminal convictions. Id. at
¶ 17.
{¶ 29} In this case, we agree with the board that our precedent calls for the
imposition of an indefinite suspension. Like the attorney in Lindner, Hartley has
multiple criminal convictions involving violent disorderly conduct and harm to
children. Lindner and this case also share the aggravating factors of a pattern of
misconduct, multiple offenses, and vulnerable victims as well as the mitigating
factor of the absence of prior discipline. And both in Lindner and here, issues of
substance abuse played a role in the misconduct, although neither attorney was
entitled to mitigation under Gov.Bar R. V(13)(C)(7). There is also a familiar
temporal aspect between these cases. Both attorneys had a clean track record
leading up to the misconduct, but in rapid succession, they committed multiple
offenses in a short period of time—two years in Lindner and one and a half years
here. In Lindner, even though the sudden spurt of misconduct was possibly due to
substance abuse, mental-health conditions, and other situational factors, we did not
believe that the attorney was ready to resume the competent, ethical, and
professional practice of law, 2017-Ohio-4362 at ¶ 16, and we found that an
indefinite suspension was the appropriate sanction. So too here.
{¶ 30} All in all, Hartley has demonstrated numerous instances of conduct
that reflect poorly on the legal profession. He has been convicted of violent acts
directed at his family, including his children, and he has publicly made vulgar and
demeaning threats to not only his ex-wife but to her attorney as well. When viewed
in light of our precedent, these actions, coupled with Hartley’s conduct during his
disciplinary hearing, warrant an indefinite suspension to “protect the public,”
Hales, 2008-Ohio-6201, at ¶ 21.
{¶ 31} When deciding whether to give Hartley credit for time he served
during his November 2021 interim remedial suspension, the board relied on the text
of the Rules for the Government of the Bar of Ohio. Gov.Bar R. V(17)(D)(2) states

10
January Term, 2024

that disciplinary orders imposing suspensions “may allow full or partial credit for
any period of suspension imposed under Sections 14 [(interim default suspension)],
15 [(impairment suspension)], or 18 [(interim felony suspension or default under a
child-support order)] of this rule.” The rule does not mention interim remedial
suspensions, which Gov.Bar R. V(19) provides for. The board invoked the maxim
of interpretation “expressio unius est exclusio alterius,” meaning that “the
expression of one thing is the exclusion of another,” Baltimore Ravens, Inc. v. Self-
Insuring Emps. Evaluation Bd., 2002-Ohio-1362, ¶ 19, to conclude that there was
no basis for awarding Hartley credit for time he had served under his interim
remedial suspension.
{¶ 32} We agree that the text of Gov.Bar R. V(17)(D)(2) does not permit an
award of credit for time served under Hartley’s interim remedial suspension. The
plain text of Gov.Bar R. V(17)(D)(2) lists various types of interim suspensions for
which credit for time served is allowed, but an interim remedial suspension is not
among them. These “circumstances support[] a sensible inference that the term left
out must have been meant to be excluded,” Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Echazabal, 536
U.S. 73, 81 (2002). Therefore, Hartley is not entitled to credit for time served.
{¶ 33} Having reviewed the record and our applicable precedent, we
conclude that an indefinite suspension with no credit for time Hartley has served
under his interim remedial suspension is the appropriate sanction for his misconduct
in this case. We therefore adopt the board’s recommendation, including the
conditions on Hartley’s reinstatement to the practice of law.
III. CONCLUSION
{¶ 34} Accordingly, Aaron Paul Hartley is indefinitely suspended from the
practice of law in Ohio with no credit for time served under his November 1, 2021
interim remedial suspension. His reinstatement to the practice of law is conditioned
on (1) an independent psychological or psychiatric evaluation, conducted no more
than three months before the filing of a petition for reinstatement, by an

11
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

independent qualified healthcare professional agreed upon by the parties, (2)
evidence of compliance with any treatment recommendations of the independent
qualified healthcare professional, (3) a prognosis from the independent qualified
healthcare professional that Hartley will be able to return to the competent, ethical,
and professional practice of law, (4) evidence of a sustained period of successful
treatment of Hartley’s diagnosed conditions as identified in the board’s impairment-
examination report, and (5) proof of Hartley’s compliance with the conditions of
probation imposed in the criminal cases cited in Part I of this opinion. Costs are
taxed to Hartley.
Judgment accordingly.
__________________
Joseph M. Caligiuri, Disciplinary Counsel, and Michelle A. Hall and
Matthew A. Kanai, Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator.
Montgomery Jonson, L.L.P., and George D. Jonson, for respondent.
__________________

12

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10732162. Public record. Not legal advice.