Disciplinary Counsel v. Hoskins

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

Disciplinary Counsel v. Hoskins, Slip Opinion No. 2017-Ohio-2924.]

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. 2017-OHIO-2924

DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. HOSKINS.

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

may be cited as Disciplinary Counsel v. Hoskins, Slip Opinion No.

2017-Ohio-2924.]

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

including practicing law in a jurisdiction in violation of regulation of legal

profession in that jurisdiction—Permanent disbarment.

(No. 2016-1496—Submitted February 8, 2017—Decided May 23, 2017.)

ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Professional Conduct of the Supreme

Court, No. 2015-077.

__________________

Per Curiam.

{¶ 1} Respondent, Robert Hansford Hoskins, of Cincinnati, Ohio, Attorney

Registration No. 0068550, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1997.

{¶ 2} On February 19, 2015, the Supreme Court of Kentucky suspended

Hoskins’s license to practice law in that state for 60 days. Kentucky Bar Assn. v.

SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

Hoskins, 454 S.W.3d 289 (Ky.2015). We imposed reciprocal discipline on April

23, 2015, suspending Hoskins from the practice of law in Ohio for 60 days, and we

conditioned his reinstatement on several factors, including his reinstatement in

Kentucky. Disciplinary Counsel v. Hoskins, 142 Ohio St.3d 1244, 2015-Ohio-

1532, 30 N.E.3d 964. The Ohio suspension remains in effect.

{¶ 3} In a March 4, 2016 amended complaint, relator, disciplinary counsel,

charged Hoskins with multiple violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct in

the course of representing six separate clients—including allegations that he

knowingly continued to practice law while his license was suspended,

impersonated a former colleague in dealings with opposing counsel and the courts

of this state, lied to his clients about the status of his license to practice law, and

failed to respond to relator’s demands for information.

{¶ 4} And on June 28, 2016, during the pendency of this action, we

indefinitely suspended Hoskins from the practice of law in yet another disciplinary

action upon finding that he had engaged in “a disturbing pattern of neglect and an

ongoing failure to comply with established rules and procedures—not to mention a

flagrant disobedience of court orders and a troubling propensity to engage in

dishonesty when his actions are questioned.” Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Hoskins, __

Ohio St.3d __, 2016-Ohio-4576, __ N.E.3d __, ¶ 43-44. We also found him in

contempt of our April 23, 2015 reciprocal-discipline order and fined him $600 for

continuing to practice law in three cases while his license was under suspension.

Id. at fn. 2; Disciplinary Counsel v. Hoskins, 146 Ohio St.3d 1425, 2016-Ohio-

4594, 52 N.E.3d 1201.

{¶ 5} Hoskins answered relator’s complaint, admitting to some—but not

all—of the alleged facts and rule violations. However, he did not appear at the

panel hearing on the matter. Relator presented the testimony of six witnesses and

submitted 43 exhibits to demonstrate Hoskins’s misconduct. The Board of

Professional Conduct issued a report finding that Hoskins committed multiple

2

January Term, 2017

violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct and recommended that he be

permanently disbarred.

{¶ 6} We adopt the board’s report and recommendation and permanently

disbar Hoskins from the practice of law in Ohio.

Misconduct

Count One: Bertke Electric Company, Inc.

{¶ 7} On February 3, 2015, Hoskins commenced a civil action on behalf of

his client Bertke Electric Company, Inc., a family business partly owned by Kevin

Bertke. Following our April 23, 2015 suspension of his Ohio law license, Hoskins

continued to practice law by impersonating attorney Thomas Mayes in

communications with opposing counsel and the court.

{¶ 8} On one occasion, opposing counsel received Bertke’s responses to

discovery from an e-mail address bearing Mayes’s name. In response, counsel sent

a letter to the mailing address that Mayes had registered with the Office of Attorney

Services notifying him of deficiencies in the discovery responses. During a

subsequent telephone conversation, Mayes said that he had not participated in the

case and that he had neither created nor used the e-mail address referenced in the

letter. But when opposing counsel asked whether he knew Hoskins, Mayes replied

that he had previously worked at a law office with Hoskins. After speaking with

Mayes, the attorney reviewed his records and discovered that the person who had

identified himself as Mayes during a telephone status conference with the court had

called from the telephone number that Hoskins had registered with the Office of

Attorney Services.

{¶ 9} Hoskins withdrew from the Bertke case in September 2015, stating

that his license had become “inactive,” but he failed to notify his own client of his

withdrawal. After the court informed Bertke that he would need to obtain new

counsel, he called Hoskins—who falsely claimed that he had forgotten to take some

required classes and failed to timely renew his license; Hoskins did not reveal that

3

SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

he had been practicing law without a license for approximately six months.

Hoskins also failed to respond to relator’s letters of inquiry regarding Bertke’s

grievance.

{¶ 10} We find that Hoskins’s conduct violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.4(a)(3)

(requiring a lawyer to keep the client reasonably informed about the status of a

matter), 3.3(a)(1) (prohibiting a lawyer from knowingly making a false statement

of fact or law to a tribunal), 3.4(c) (prohibiting a lawyer from knowingly disobeying

an obligation under the rules of a tribunal), 4.1(a) (prohibiting a lawyer from

knowingly making a false statement of material fact or law), 5.5(a) (prohibiting a

lawyer from practicing law in a jurisdiction in violation of the regulation of the

legal profession in that jurisdiction), 8.4(c) (prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in

conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation), 8.4(h)

(prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct that adversely reflects on the

lawyer’s fitness to practice law), and 8.1(b) and Gov.Bar R. V(9)(G) (both requiring

a lawyer to cooperate with a disciplinary investigation).

Count Two: Preferred Interiors Drywall Systems, L.L.C.

{¶ 11} In July 2014, Hoskins filed a complaint on behalf of Preferred

Interiors Drywall Systems, L.L.C., in the Clermont County Court of Common

Pleas. He participated in a scheduling conference with the court on June 19, 2015,

identified himself as counsel for the plaintiff, and failed to mention that his license

to practice law had been suspended for almost two months.

{¶ 12} Hoskins scheduled and appeared at the defendant’s deposition on

July 7, 2015, in Georgetown, Ohio. During the deposition, opposing counsel asked

Hoskins whether he had been reinstated to the practice of law in Ohio. Hoskins

claimed that he had spoken with an attorney in the Office of Disciplinary Counsel

the previous day who informed him that his license had been reinstated. Opposing

counsel’s partner called the board and learned that Hoskins had not been reinstated

to the practice of law in Ohio.

4

January Term, 2017

{¶ 13} During a break in the deposition, opposing counsel contacted the

judge to inform him that Hoskins was deposing the witness despite his ongoing

suspension from the practice of law. After confirming that the suspension remained

in effect, the judge issued an order staying all further proceedings in the case,

prohibiting Hoskins from participating in the case, and directing him to

immediately advise his client of his suspension.

{¶ 14} By continuing to practice law while his license was under suspension

and falsely representing that his license had been reinstated, Hoskins violated

Prof.Cond.R. 4.1(a), 5.5(a), 8.4(c), and 8.4(d) (prohibiting a lawyer from engaging

in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice).

Count Three: The Hounchell Adoption

{¶ 15} On June 5, 2015, Hoskins filed an adult-adoption petition and paid

the court costs in Hamilton County Probate Court case No. 2015-002350, In re

Adoption of Hounchell. At the July 6, 2015 hearing on the matter, Hoskins

identified himself as an attorney, entered an appearance, and examined the

petitioners and the adoptee. By engaging in this conduct while his license was

under suspension, Hoskins violated Prof.Cond.R. 5.5(a).

Count Four: The Hanks Divorce

{¶ 16} In December 2014, Robert M. Hanks paid Hoskins $1,500 to

represent him in a divorce proceeding in the Adams County Court of Common

Pleas. In violation of this court’s April 23, 2015 order, Hoskins failed to notify

Hanks of his suspension, return Hanks’s file, or refund any unearned fees.

Nevertheless, Hanks learned of the suspension in late May or early June 2015 and

asked Hoskins about it. Hoskins falsely stated that he was still entitled to practice

law in Ohio. After that conversation, Hoskins failed to respond to Hanks’s

communications—including his request for a refund and the return of his file.

Hanks obtained new counsel at an additional cost.

5

SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

{¶ 17} Hoskins’s knowing failure to notify Hanks of his suspension from

the practice of law and his dishonesty when questioned about that suspension

violated Prof.Cond. R. 1.4(a)(3), 3.4(c) and 8.4(c). His conduct toward Hanks also

violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.4(a)(4) (requiring a lawyer to comply as soon as practicable

with reasonable requests for information from the client), 1.16(d) (requiring a

lawyer withdrawing from representation to take steps reasonably practicable to

protect a client’s interest), and 1.16(e) (requiring a lawyer to promptly refund any

unearned fee upon the lawyer’s withdrawal from employment).

Count Five: The Howser Parenting-Agreement Modification

{¶ 18} Laura Howser paid Hoskins $850 to seek modification of her

parenting agreement with her ex-husband in October 2014. Although he prepared

a one-paragraph affidavit that was to be submitted with Howser’s motion and

presented it to her for her signature, she told him to wait for her instruction to file

the documents with the court.

{¶ 19} Howser later sent Hoskins an e-mail indicating that due to a change

in circumstances, his services were no longer needed. She requested an itemized

statement and a refund of the unearned portion of her retainer, but Hoskins did not

respond to her e-mail.

{¶ 20} In September 2015, Howser searched the Internet and discovered

that Hoskins had been suspended from the practice of law in Ohio. She sent him

an e-mail informing him that she knew about the suspension and demanding a

refund of her unearned retainer. Approximately three months later, she received a

$700 refund—half from Hoskins and half from attorney Danny Bubp, with whom

Hoskins once shared an office. However, Hoskins did not respond to relator’s

letters of inquiry regarding Howser’s grievance.

{¶ 21} We find that Hoskins’s conduct in this matter violated Prof.Cond.R.

1.4(a)(3), 1.4(a)(4), 1.16(d), 1.16(e), 3.4(c), and 8.1(b) and Gov.Bar R. V(9)(G).

6

January Term, 2017

Count Six: The Covert Matters

{¶ 22} In his answer to the amended complaint, Hoskins admitted that he

had prepared a will for Dr. Howard Covert and that he sent a draft to him in

December 2015. He also acknowledged that he had met with Covert on at least ten

occasions in the three years prior to relator’s March 4, 2016 filing of the first

amended complaint and that they met in September 2015 to discuss Covert’s

retirement and the sale of his optometry practice. On these facts, we find that

Hoskins violated Prof.Cond.R. 5.5(a) by continuing to practice law in these matters

while his license was under suspension.

Sanction

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

several relevant factors, including the ethical duties the lawyer violated, relevant

aggravating and mitigating factors, and the sanctions imposed in similar cases. See

Gov.Bar R. V(13)(A).

{¶ 24} Here, eight aggravating factors are present. Hoskins has a significant

prior disciplinary record, including the suspension of his Kentucky law license, our

reciprocal suspension of his Ohio license, our subsequent finding that he was in

contempt of that reciprocal suspension, and our indefinite suspension of his Ohio

license on June 28, 2016. See Gov.Bar R. V(13)(B)(1). He also acted with a

dishonest or selfish motive by knowingly continuing to practice law in multiple

cases while his license was under suspension; by repeatedly lying to his clients, the

courts, and other attorneys; and even by impersonating a former colleague to

facilitate his misconduct. See Gov.Bar R. V(13)(B)(2). Moreover, Hoskins

engaged in a pattern of misconduct involving multiple offenses, failed to cooperate

in the resulting disciplinary investigations, submitted false statements during the

disciplinary process, failed to acknowledge the wrongful nature of his misconduct,

and harmed his clients. See Gov.Bar R. V(13)(B)(3) through (8).

7

SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

{¶ 25} After the panel hearing, Hoskins submitted a psychologist’s letter to

the board without seeking leave to supplement the record. The board refused to

consider the letter in mitigation because Hoskins had been barred from presenting

documentary evidence at the hearing based on his failure to exchange hearing

exhibits with relator before the hearing. But even if we were to consider the

psychologist’s letter, it does not satisfy all the requirements of Gov.Bar R.

V(13)(C)(7) and, therefore, would be insufficient to establish the existence of a

mitigating disorder.

{¶ 26} In mitigation, we note that other sanctions or penalties have been

imposed for some of Hoskins’s misconduct—including our finding of contempt

and our imposition of a $600 fine for his continued practice of law while his license

was under suspension, Disciplinary Counsel v. Hoskins, 146 Ohio St.3d 1425,

2016-Ohio-4594, 52 N.E.3d 1201; Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Hoskins, __ Ohio St.3d

__, 2016-Ohio-4576, __ N.E.3d __, at fn. 2. See Gov.Bar R. V(13)(C)(6). But that

mitigating factor alone is insufficient to overcome the substantial aggravating

factors present in this case.

{¶ 27} We have recognized that the presumptive sanction for continuing to

practice law while under suspension is disbarment. E.g., Disciplinary Counsel v.

Fletcher, 135 Ohio St.3d 404, 2013-Ohio-1510, 987 N.E.2d 678, ¶ 10; Disciplinary

Counsel v. Sabroff, 123 Ohio St.3d 182, 2009-Ohio-4205, 915 N.E.2d 307, ¶ 21;

Disciplinary Counsel v. Frazier, 110 Ohio St.3d 288, 2006-Ohio-4481, 853 N.E.2d

295, ¶ 54; Disciplinary Counsel v. Allison, 98 Ohio St.3d 322, 2003-Ohio-776, 784

N.E.2d 695, ¶ 12. And we have customarily imposed that sanction on attorneys

who violated our suspension orders on multiple occasions and then failed to

cooperate in the ensuing disciplinary investigation. See, e.g., Cleveland Metro. Bar

Assn. v. Pryatel, 145 Ohio St.3d 398, 2016-Ohio-865, 49 N.E.3d 1286, ¶ 4-6, 18;

Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn. v. Brown, 143 Ohio St.3d 333, 2015-Ohio-2344, 37

8

January Term, 2017

N.E.3d 1199, ¶ 5, 14, 17; Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn. v. Cicirella, 133 Ohio St.3d

448, 2012-Ohio-4300, 979 N.E.2d 244, ¶ 5, 10, 13.

{¶ 28} In light of Hoskins’s extensive pattern of deliberately and repeatedly

violating this court’s prior orders, the presence of numerous aggravating factors,

and the absence of significant mitigating factors, we find that permanent disbarment

is the only appropriate sanction in this case.

{¶ 29} Accordingly, we permanently disbar Robert Hansford Hoskins from

the practice of law in Ohio and order him to make restitution of $1,500 to Robert

M. Hanks no later than 90 days from the date of this opinion. Costs are taxed to

Hoskins.

Judgment accordingly.

O’CONNOR, C.J., and O’DONNELL, KENNEDY, FRENCH, O’NEILL, and

DEWINE, JJ., concur.

FISCHER, J., not participating.

_________________

Scott J. Drexel, Disciplinary Counsel, for relator.

Robert Hoskins, pro se.

_________________

9