disciplinary handbook: volume v - Supreme Court - State of Ohio

Hoppel, Disciplinary Counsel v.129 Ohio St.3d 53, 2011-Ohio-2672. Decided 6/8/2011.Case Summaries- 128Respondent accepted fees to represent clients in many bankruptcy proceedings, and then failed toperform the legal work. The parties stipulated to many of the facts and exhibits presented to the panel.Respondent accepted retainers and deposits for court costs totaling over $14,000 for 14 separate clientmatters and converted them for personal use to buy cocaine. He repeatedly failed to perform legal workand appear at court hearings. He also failed to respond to clients, failed to keep them reasonablyinformed about their matters, and failed to reasonably consult with one client about the means to obtainher objectives. He collected excessive fees compared to what work he did. He dishonestly stated to thecourt that he needed to pay the bankruptcy fees in installments when he had already received the moneyfrom his clients, and further misrepresented to his clients that he needed more time to prepare theirbankruptcy petitions. Respondent was found in contempt by one court and sentenced to two 60-day jailterms; he served 13 days before having his sentence suspended so that he could go to drugrehabilitation. Respondent‘s conduct amounted to one violation of Prof.Cond.R. 1.4(a)(1) and 1.4(a)(2);three violations of Prof.Cond.R. 1.1 and 3.3(a)(1); six violations of Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(d); ten violations ofProf.Cond.R. 1.4(a)(3); 13 violations of Prof.Cond.R. 1.5; 14 violations of Prof.Cond.R. 1.3 and 8.4(c);and 15 violations of 8.4(h). The Court adopted the findings of fact and conclusions of law. Inmitigation, the parties stipulated to, and the board found, a lack of prior disciplinary record, full andfree disclosure to the board, a cooperative attitude during the disciplinary process, and a cocaineaddiction that rose to the level of chemical dependency mitigation. BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(a), (d),and (g). In aggravation, the board found a dishonest or selfish motive, a pattern of misconduct involvingmultiple offenses, harm to vulnerable victims, and a failure to make restitution. BCGD Proc.Reg.10(B)(1)(b), (c), (d), and (i). The relator, panel and board recommended an indefinite suspension.Respondent objected to this finding, arguing that the board lacked information regarding restitution hemade and failed to consider character evidence in mitigation. The Court found that respondent didpresent evidence of good character and, since the board meeting, had made restitution to his clients.The Court also rejected the board‘s finding of no prior discipline, noting that respondent was previouslysuspended for failure to properly register and found it to be an aggravating factor. The Courtreiterated that the presumptive sanction for misappropriation of client funds is disbarment, but thatsubstantial mitigation can overcome that presumption. Relying on Greco (2005), Shouser (2007), andWashington (2006), the Court ordered respondent be suspended from the practice of law for two years,with 18 months stayed on the conditions that he extend his OLAP contract for two years, maintain fullcompliance with it, and commit no further misconduct.Rules Violated: Prof.Cond.R. 1.1, 1.3, 1.4(a)(1), 1.4(a)(2), 1.4(a)(3), 1.5, 3.3(a)(1), 8.4(c), 8.4(d),8.4(h)Aggravation: (b), (c), (d), (i)Mitigation: (a), (d), (g)Prior Discipline: YES Procedure/ Process Issues: NO Criminal Conduct: NOPublic Official: NO Sanction: Two-year suspension, 18 months stayed