Medina Cty. Bar Assn. v. Hall

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

Medina Cty. Bar Assn. v. Hall, Slip Opinion No. 2026-Ohio-629.]

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. 2026-OHIO-629

MEDINA COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION v. HALL.

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

may be cited as Medina Cty. Bar Assn. v. Hall, Slip Opinion No.

2026-Ohio-629.]

Attorneys—Misconduct—Violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct—

Conditionally stayed six-month suspension.

(No. 2025-1314—Submitted November 18, 2025—Decided February 26, 2026.)

ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Professional Conduct

of the Supreme Court, No. 2025-002.

__________________

The per curiam opinion below was joined by KENNEDY, C.J., and FISCHER,

DEWINE, DETERS, HAWKINS, and SHANAHAN, JJ. BRUNNER, J., did not participate.

Per Curiam.

{¶ 1} Respondent, Eric Dorman Hall, of Medina, Ohio, Attorney

Registration No. 0067566, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1997.

SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

{¶ 2} In March 2012, we suspended Hall from the practice of law for two

years with six months conditionally stayed and ordered him to serve a one-year

period of monitored probation. His misconduct in that case consisted of failing to

perform the agreed-upon work after accepting retainers from numerous clients,

failing to respond to clients’ efforts to communicate with him, and misrepresenting

to a client that he had filed a complaint in court. See Disciplinary Counsel v. Hall,

2012-Ohio-783. In September 2015, we reinstated Hall to the practice of law and

placed him on probation. Disciplinary Counsel v. Hall, 2015-Ohio-3871. We

terminated his probation on February 3, 2017. Disciplinary Counsel v. Hall, 2017-

Ohio-393.

{¶ 3} In a January 2025 complaint, relator, Medina County Bar Association,

alleged that Hall failed to provide competent representation to a client, neglected

the client’s criminal matter, and failed to reasonably consult with the client about

the means by which the client’s objectives would be accomplished. After a three-

member panel of the Board of Professional Conduct rejected the parties’ consent-

to-discipline agreement, the parties entered into stipulations of fact and misconduct

and stipulated to five exhibits.

{¶ 4} By agreement of the parties, the matter proceeded to a hearing before

two of the three commissioners of the board assigned to hear the case, with the third

commissioner participating in the consideration of the matter after the hearing.

Based on the parties’ stipulations and the evidence presented, including Hall’s

testimony, the panel found that Hall committed the charged misconduct and

recommended that he be suspended from the practice of law for six months with

the suspension fully stayed on the conditions that he (1) engage in no further

misconduct, (2) serve six months of monitored probation focused on the

management of all criminal cases in which he serves as court-appointed counsel,

and (3) complete six hours of continuing legal education (“CLE”) focused on

lawyer communication and diligence in addition to the requirements of Gov.Bar R.

2

January Term, 2026

X. The board adopted the panel’s report and recommendation, and the parties have

jointly waived objections. We adopt the board’s findings of misconduct and

recommended sanction.

FACTS AND MISCONDUCT

{¶ 5} On March 8, 2024, Charles Beekman, a homeless person, was arrested

for threatening domestic violence in violation of R.C. 2919.25(C), a fourth-degree

misdemeanor. The maximum penalty for the charged offense was 30 days in jail

and a fine of $250. See R.C. 2929.24(A)(4). During Beekman’s March 11

arraignment in the Medina County Municipal Court, the judge appointed Hall as

defense counsel. The court also scheduled Beekman’s bench trial for March 26 and

set bond on the condition that he provide a current residential address to which he

could be released. Beekman was unable to provide a current residential address

and remained in jail.

{¶ 6} Following Beekman’s arraignment and without consulting him, Hall

filed a jury demand and discovery request. Consequently, the March 26 trial date

was vacated and rescheduled for May 2, 2024. Hall made no effort to determine

whether Beekman remained in jail following his arraignment or whether the court

had a procedure for releasing a defendant who lacked a current residential address.

{¶ 7} Hall did not meet with Beekman and had no communication with him

by any means during his incarceration. On April 5, Hall filed a motion for an

expedited change-of-plea and sentencing hearing without obtaining Beekman’s

consent. Later that day, the municipal court denied Hall’s motion but sua sponte

modified Beekman’s bail conditions, allowing him to be released without a current

residential address.

{¶ 8} At Beekman’s request, Hall filed a motion to withdraw as counsel on

April 23. The following day, Hall filed a motion for evaluation of Beekman’s

competency. The municipal court denied the motion to withdraw but granted the

3

SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

motion for a competency evaluation. On April 25, Beekman filed a grievance

against Hall with relator.

{¶ 9} Beekman submitted to the court-ordered competency examination.

At a June 5 hearing, the municipal court considered the competency report, which

noted that Beekman had been found to be not competent to assist in his defense and

recommended that he receive inpatient treatment at a mental-health facility for 30

days to restore his competency. Beekman himself objected to that

recommendation—though Hall did not. Hall also failed to inform the court that

Beekman had already been confined for 28 days or argue that the case should be

dismissed because the maximum sentence for the charged offense was just 30 days.

Although a probation officer present at the hearing informed the court that

Beekman had already served 28 days in jail, the court ordered that Beekman be

taken into custody and transported to the treatment facility.

{¶ 10} On June 6, the municipal court determined that it had lacked any

ability to take further action on the charge against Beekman given the maximum

penalty. The court therefore vacated its inpatient-treatment order and sua sponte

dismissed the charge.

{¶ 11} On these facts, the board found by clear and convincing evidence

that Hall violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.1 (requiring a lawyer to provide competent

representation to a client), 1.3 (requiring a lawyer to act with reasonable diligence

in representing a client), and 1.4(a)(2) (requiring a lawyer to reasonably consult

with a client about the means by which the client’s objectives are to be

accomplished). We adopt these findings of misconduct.

RECOMMENDED SANCTION

{¶ 12} 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.

4

January Term, 2026

{¶ 13} In this case, the parties have agreed and the board has found that two

aggravating factors are present—namely, Hall’s prior discipline and the harm he

caused to a vulnerable client. See Gov.Bar R. V(13)(B)(1) and (8). The parties

have also agreed and the board has found that three mitigating factors are present:

the absence of a dishonest or selfish motive, Hall’s cooperative attitude toward the

proceedings after the complaint was filed, and his good reputation as demonstrated

by letters submitted by four attorneys. See Gov.Bar R. V(13)(C)(2), (4), and (5).

We also note that Hall presented evidence indicating that he is one of just two

attorneys selected to serve in the Valor Court established by the Medina Municipal

Court to address problems that are unique to military veterans.

{¶ 14} In addition, Hall testified that after relator commenced its

investigation, Hall learned that the municipal court has a policy that allows

defendants without a residential address to be released on bail. Now that he is

aware of that policy, Hall testified, he has taken steps to ensure that he will not

make the same mistakes again. Specifically, when filing a motion for bond on

behalf of unhoused clients, he now requests that they be released under the

municipal court’s policy. He also now checks the jail roster daily to make sure that

he knows where his clients are, and he visits clients in jail and keeps track of how

long they have been there. He emphasized that he pays particularly close attention

to low-degree misdemeanor cases due to the short duration of the maximum

sentences for those offenses.

{¶ 15} In determining the appropriate sanction to recommend for Hall’s

misconduct, the board found three recent cases—Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn. v.

Brown, 2024-Ohio-2789; Lorain Cty. Bar Assn. v. Haynes, 2020-Ohio-1570; and

Mahoning Cty. Bar Assn. v. Vivo, 2019-Ohio-1858—to be compelling precedent.

{¶ 16} In Brown, the attorney neglected a client’s legal matter, failed to

keep the client reasonably informed about the status of the matter, failed to comply

as soon as practicable with the client’s reasonable requests for information, and

5

SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

failed to protect the client’s interests upon the termination of her representation.

Relying on Haynes, Vivo, and two other cases, we suspended Brown from the

practice of law for six months with the suspension fully stayed on the condition that

she engage in no further misconduct. Brown at ¶ 19-20.

{¶ 17} In Haynes, the attorney failed to finalize a client’s qualified

domestic-relations order in a timely manner, failed to keep the client reasonably

informed about the status of the matter, and failed to respond to the client’s repeated

requests for information. Two aggravating factors were present: Haynes had

caused economic harm to the client, and Haynes was publicly reprimanded 20 years

earlier for neglecting another client’s legal matter. Haynes at ¶ 1, 13. In addition

to the mitigating factors present in this case and Brown, Haynes also made

restitution to his client—though the majority of that restitution was paid by his

professional-liability insurer. See id. at ¶ 14. We imposed a conditionally stayed

six-month suspension for Haynes’s misconduct. Id. at ¶ 18.

{¶ 18} Like Hall, the attorney in Vivo failed to provide competent

representation to a client, failed to act with reasonable diligence in handling the

client’s matter, and failed to consult with the client about the means by which her

objectives would be accomplished. The sole aggravating factor present was the

conditionally stayed one-year suspension we had imposed on Vivo less than seven

years earlier for similar misconduct. Vivo, 2019-Ohio-1858 at ¶ 1, 9. Mitigating

factors consisted of Vivo’s timely, good-faith effort to make restitution to his client

and his full cooperation in the disciplinary proceeding. Id. We suspended Vivo for

six months with the entire suspension stayed on the conditions that he complete six

hours of CLE focused on law-office management and engage in no further

misconduct; we also ordered him to serve a one-year period of monitored probation.

Id. at ¶ 14.

{¶ 19} In light of the sanctions imposed in Brown, Haynes, and Vivo, the

board recommends that we suspend Hall for six months with the entire suspension

6

January Term, 2026

stayed on the conditions that he (1) engage in no further misconduct, (2) serve six

months of probation monitored by a licensed Ohio attorney in good standing who

shall periodically review all criminal cases in which Hall serves as court-appointed

counsel, (3) compete six hours of CLE focused on the topics of lawyer

communication and diligence in addition to the requirements of Gov.Bar R. X, and

(4) pay the costs of these proceedings.

{¶ 20} Recognizing that Hall has taken appropriate remedial steps to ensure

that he will not repeat his misconduct, we agree that a six-month suspension fully

stayed on the conditions recommended by the board is the appropriate sanction in

this case.

CONCLUSION

{¶ 21} Accordingly, Eric Dorman Hall is hereby suspended from the

practice of law in Ohio for six months with the entire suspension stayed on the

conditions that he (1) commit no further misconduct, (2) serve six months of

monitored probation, in accordance with Gov.Bar R. V(21), focused on

management of all criminal cases in which Hall serves as court-appointed counsel,

(3) complete six hours of CLE focused on lawyer communication and diligence in

addition to the requirements of Gov.Bar R. X, and (4) pay the costs of these

disciplinary proceedings. If Hall fails to comply with a condition of the stay, the

stay will be revoked and he will be required to serve the full six-month suspension.

Costs are taxed to Hall.

Judgment accordingly.

__________________

Patricia A. Walker, Bar Counsel, and Sara M. Costanzo, Associate Bar

Counsel, for relator.

David V. Gedrock, for respondent.

__________________

7