Disciplinary Counsel v. Hall

[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Hall, 131 Ohio St.3d 222, 2012-Ohio-783.]

DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. HALL.

[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Hall, 131 Ohio St.3d 222, 2012-Ohio-783.]

Attorneys—Misconduct—Multiple violations of Rules of Professional Conduct,

including failing to act with reasonable diligence in representing a client

and failing to keep a client reasonably informed about the status of a

matter—Two-year suspension with six months stayed on conditions.

(No. 2011-1017—Submitted August 8, 2011—Decided March 1, 2012.)

ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and

Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 10-042.

__________________

Per Curiam.

{¶ 1} Respondent, Eric D. Hall of Medina, Ohio, Attorney Registration

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

{¶ 2} On November 29, 2010, relator, disciplinary counsel, filed an

amended complaint with the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and

Discipline alleging 13 counts of misconduct. Relying on the parties’ joint

stipulation of facts and violations, as well as testimony at a formal hearing, the

board made findings of fact and misconduct and recommended that respondent

pay restitution and be suspended from the practice of law for 24 months with six

months of the suspension stayed. We adopt the board’s findings of facts and

misconduct and accept its recommended sanction.

Misconduct

{¶ 3} The complaint before the board alleged 13 counts of misconduct.

The board, in accordance with the parties’ stipulation, found that four of them had

not been proved by clear and convincing evidence and dismissed them.

SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

{¶ 4} In all the remaining counts, Hall agreed to represent clients but

then failed to perform the agreed-upon work or to respond to his clients’ efforts to

reach him. In all but one of the counts, Hall had accepted retainers from the

clients, although he has refunded one retainer. And in one of the counts, Hall

added to his misconduct by misrepresenting to a client that he had filed a

complaint in court.

{¶ 5} The board concluded that the conduct described above resulted in

violations of Prof.Cond.R. 1.3, 1.4(a)(3), 1.4(a)(4), 1.16(e), 8.4(c), and 8.4(h).

Some of Hall’s misconduct occurred while the Code of Professional

Responsibility remained in effect; as to this conduct, the board found that Hall

had violated DR 1-102(A)(6).

{¶ 6} We adopt the board’s findings.

Sanction

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

relevant factors, including the duties the lawyer violated, the lawyer’s mental

state, and sanctions imposed in similar cases. Stark Cty. Bar Assn. v. Buttacavoli,

96 Ohio St.3d 424, 2002-Ohio-4743, 775 N.E.2d 818, ¶ 16. In making a final

determination, we also weigh evidence of the aggravating and mitigating factors

listed in BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B). Disciplinary Counsel v. Broeren, 115 Ohio

St.3d 473, 2007-Ohio-5251, 875 N.E.2d 935, ¶ 21. Because each disciplinary case

is unique, we are not limited to the factors specified in the rule but may take into

account “all relevant factors” in determining what sanction to impose. BCGD

Proc.Reg. 10(B).

{¶ 8} As aggravating factors, the parties stipulated and the board found

that Hall had demonstrated a pattern of misconduct, committed multiple offenses,

and harmed his victims. See BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(c), (d), and (h).

{¶ 9} As to mitigating factors, the parties stipulated and the board found

that respondent lacked a prior disciplinary record, lacked a dishonest or selfish

2

January Term, 2012

motive, had displayed a generally cooperative attitude toward the disciplinary

proceedings, and had presented evidence of good character and reputation. See

BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(a), (b), (d), and (e).

{¶ 10} The board, in agreement with the parties’ stipulation,

recommended that Hall be suspended from the practice of law for 24 months with

six months of the suspension stayed, followed by a one-year probation. It further

recommended that reinstatement be conditioned on Hall’s payment of full

restitution to his clients and of the costs of these proceedings.

{¶ 11} We adopt the board’s recommended sanction, which is appropriate

in this case. See, e.g., Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn. v. Gresley, 127 Ohio St.3d

430, 2010-Ohio-6208, 940 N.E.2d 945 (imposing two-year suspension with six

months conditionally stayed when attorney neglected client matters and failed to

respond to client communications); Columbus Bar Assn. v. Ellis, 120 Ohio St.3d

89, 2008-Ohio-5278, 896 N.E.2d 703 (imposing two-year suspension when

attorney accepted fees, neglected client matters, and deceived clients). The

record, the balance of aggravating and mitigating factors, and precedent all

support the board’s recommendation.

{¶ 12} Accordingly, Eric D. Hall is suspended from the practice of law in

the state of Ohio for 24 months with six months of the suspension stayed,

followed by a one-year probation. Reinstatement is conditioned on the payment

of restitution as follows: $1,500 to Tami Beckwith, $2,500 to Mike Henry, $700

to Stanley Fossett, $1,200 to Lisa Linton, $1,000 to Nicholas Lorence, $2,500 to

Debra Hetman, and $2,500 to Nelson Corporan. Costs are taxed to respondent.

Judgment accordingly.

O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’DONNELL,

LANZINGER, CUPP, and MCGEE BROWN, JJ., concur.

__________________

3

SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

Jonathan E. Coughlan, Disciplinary Counsel, and Joseph Caligiuri,

Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator.

Christopher J. Weber, for respondent.

______________________

4