Dayton Bar Assn. v. Hunt

[Cite as Dayton Bar Assn. v. Hunt, 127 Ohio St.3d 390, 2010-Ohio-6148.]

DAYTON BAR ASSOCIATION v. HUNT.

[Cite as Dayton Bar Assn. v. Hunt, 127 Ohio St.3d 390, 2010-Ohio-6148.]

Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Failure to act with reasonable diligence and

promptness in representing a client — Failure to keep the client

reasonably informed — Failure to cooperate in investigation of

misconduct — Six-month suspension.

(No. 2010-1459 — Submitted September 28, 2010 — Decided

December 21, 2010.)

ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and

Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 09-065.

__________________

Per Curiam.

{¶ 1} Respondent, Kevin M. Hunt of Dayton, Ohio, Attorney

Registration No. 0073405, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 2001.

The Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline concluded that

respondent engaged in professional misconduct and recommends that he be

suspended from the practice of law for six months and that the cost of these

proceedings be taxed to him.

{¶ 2} We agree that respondent committed professional misconduct as

found by the board and adopt its recommended sanction.

Background

{¶ 3} On August 14, 2009, relator, Dayton Bar Association, filed a three-

count complaint against respondent, alleging two violations of the Rules of

Professional Conduct and a violation of the Supreme Court Rules for the

Government of the Bar stemming from respondent’s failure to manage cases for,

and communicate with, multiple clients and his refusal to cooperate with the

SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

related disciplinary investigation. The parties submitted the matter to a panel of

the board on the admissions made by respondent in a proposed consent to

discipline agreement, but the agreement was rejected by the panel. The panel

then proceeded to a hearing. Prior to the hearing, relator dismissed Count Two of

the complaint, and the panel then heard the evidence.

{¶ 4} Following the hearing, the panel accepted the parties’ stipulations

regarding findings of fact and conclusions of law. However, the panel rejected

the stipulated sanction of an 18-month suspension with the possibility of

reinstatement after six months conditioned upon a favorable mental health

evaluation. Instead, the panel recommended a six-month suspension, noting that

the evidence did not establish that respondent’s conduct was the result of a

medical or psychological infirmity and that fact rendered the stipulated sanction

inappropriate. The board adopted the panel’s findings of fact, conclusions of law,

and recommended sanction and further recommended that the cost of the

proceedings be taxed to respondent. Neither respondent nor relator has objected

to the board’s recommendation.

Misconduct

Count One

{¶ 5} Two clients hired respondent to represent them in a medical

negligence lawsuit. Respondent timely filed the complaint, but thereafter he

failed to obtain an expert witness, respond to discovery, or respond to separate

motions for summary judgment. As a result, the case was dismissed. Respondent

did not notify his clients that their case had been dismissed, and he also failed to

respond to their inquiries on several occasions throughout the lawsuit.

{¶ 6} Respondent admitted to violating Prof.Cond.R. 1.3 (an attorney

shall act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client) and

1.4 (an attorney shall keep the client reasonably informed about the status of the

2

January Term, 2010

matter). We agree with the board that clear and convincing evidence supports

these findings. Thus, we adopt the recommendation of the board as to Count One.

Count Three

{¶ 7} After another client retained respondent in connection with a

divorce proceeding, respondent failed to communicate with her and filed an

answer to the complaint out of rule. The client filed a grievance against him, and

relator attempted to contact respondent to investigate the grievance. However,

respondent failed to cooperate with relator in the investigation of the grievance

and ignored relator’s repeated attempts to contact him by telephone and by

certified mail.

{¶ 8} Respondent admitted to violating Gov.Bar. R. V(4)(G) (neglecting

or refusing to assist in the investigation of a disciplinary matter). We agree with

the board that clear and convincing evidence supports this finding. Thus, we

adopt the recommendation of the board as to Count Three.

Sanction

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

relevant factors, including the ethical duties that the attorney violated 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 our determination,

we also weigh evidence of the aggravating and mitigating factors listed in Section

10(B) of the Rules and Regulations Governing Procedure on Complaints and

Hearings Before the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline

(“BCGD Proc.Reg.”). Disciplinary Counsel v. Broeren, 115 Ohio St.3d 473,

2007-Ohio-5251, 875 N.E.2d 935, ¶ 21.

{¶ 10} As aggravating factors, the board found that respondent committed

multiple offenses and failed to cooperate in the disciplinary process. BCGD

Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(d) and (e). In mitigation, the board found that respondent had

no prior disciplinary record. BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(a).

3

SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

{¶ 11} Neither relator nor respondent has objected to the six-month

suspension recommended by the board, and such a sanction is warranted based on

respondent’s misconduct. See, e.g., Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Marosan, 109

Ohio St.3d 439, 2006-Ohio-2816, 848 N.E.2d 837 (six-month suspension

appropriate for attorney’s misconduct, which included neglecting a case and

failing to cooperate in the disciplinary investigation). Thus, having reviewed the

record, weighed the aggravating and mitigating factors, and considered the

sanctions imposed for comparable conduct, we adopt the board’s findings of fact

and conclusions of law and its recommended sanction of a six-month suspension.

{¶ 12} Accordingly, we suspend Kevin M. Hunt from the practice of law

for a period of six months. Costs are taxed to respondent.

Judgment accordingly.

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

O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, and CUPP, JJ., concur.

__________________

Andrew C. Storar, for relator.

Thomas J. Replogle, for respondent.

______________________

4