Case Title: Disciplinary Counsel v. Fuhry

Citation: 2017-Ohio-8813

Docket Number: 

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2017-12-06T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
Disciplinary Counsel v. Fuhry, Slip Opinion No. 2017-Ohio-8813.] 
 
 
 
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-8813 
DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. FUHRY. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as Disciplinary Counsel v. Fuhry, Slip Opinion No.  
2017-Ohio-8813.] 
Attorneys—Misconduct—Violations of professional-conduct rules, including 
practicing law while under suspension and engaging in conduct involving 
dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation—Two-year suspension, with 
six months stayed on condition. 
(No. 2017-0489—Submitted May 3, 2017—Decided December 6, 2017.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Professional Conduct of the  
Supreme Court, No. 2016-060. 
__________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Gigi Hoang Fuhry, of Akron, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0071630, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1999.  On 
November 1, 2013, we suspended her from the practice of law based on her failure 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
2
to register as an attorney for the 2013/2015 biennium.  In re Attorney Registration 
Suspension of Fuhry, 136 Ohio St.3d 1544, 2013-Ohio-4827, 996 N.E.2d 973.  We 
imposed a second suspension on December 17, 2014, based on Fuhry’s failure to 
comply with the continuing-legal-education (“CLE”) and reporting requirements of 
Gov.Bar R. X.  141 Ohio St.3d 1407, 2014-Ohio-5542, 21 N.E.3d 1101.  We 
reinstated her license to practice on November 16, 2015.  In re Reinstatement of 
Fuhry, 144 Ohio St.3d 1432, 2015-Ohio-5363, 42 N.E.3d 766. 
{¶ 2} On November 4, 2016, relator, Disciplinary Counsel, charged Fuhry 
with professional misconduct for continuing to practice law while her license was 
under suspension and making a false statement in an application to transfer her 
securities-industry registration and to relator in the course of relator’s disciplinary 
investigation. 
{¶ 3} A panel of the Board of Professional Conduct considered the cause on 
the parties’ consent-to-discipline agreement.  See Gov.Bar R. V(16). 
{¶ 4} In their agreement, the parties stipulate that Fuhry failed to complete 
her required CLE and that, although she failed to open correspondence from this 
court, she was aware of her suspension from the practice of law in Ohio. 
{¶ 5} On November 3, 2014, she was hired as staff counsel and director of 
institutional compliance by ValMark Securities in Akron, Ohio.  As staff counsel, 
Fuhry provided legal advice to the company and drafted and revised contracts and 
agreements, including vendor and nondisclosure agreements.  Her employer 
required her to be a member in good standing of at least one state bar, but her Ohio 
law license was under suspension when she accepted the job, and it does not appear 
that she is licensed in any other state.  On December 4, 2014, Fuhry completed a 
Uniform Application for Securities Industry Registration or Transfer, falsely 
attesting that her authorization to act as an attorney had never been revoked or 
suspended.  Her employer later filed the falsified application with the Financial 
Industry Regulatory Authority. 
January Term, 2017 
 
3
{¶ 6} On or about October 26, 2015, ValMark’s chief legal counsel, Shelly 
Goering, noted that she had not received a request for reimbursement of Fuhry’s 
attorney-registration fees.  Goering checked this court’s website and learned that 
Fuhry’s license to practice law had been suspended since 2013.  When confronted 
with that information, Fuhry said she would look into the matter.  She later admitted 
to Goering that she had known about her license suspension and that she had 
delayed filling out the securities form because she knew that the form asked 
whether the applicant had ever had his or her license to practice law suspended. 
ValMark immediately terminated Fuhry’s employment.  Thereafter, Fuhry 
completed her CLE requirements, paid all fines associated with her suspensions, 
and applied for reinstatement of her license.  Although we reinstated her license on 
November 16, 2015, she has not resumed the practice of law. 
{¶ 7} Fuhry admits that her conduct violated Prof.Cond.R. 5.5(a) 
(prohibiting a lawyer from practicing law in a jurisdiction in violation of the 
regulation of the legal profession in that jurisdiction) and Gov.Bar R. VI(10)(C)(1) 
(prohibiting a lawyer from practicing law while under an attorney-registration 
suspension), Prof.Cond.R. 5.5(b)(2) (prohibiting a lawyer who is not admitted to 
practice in this jurisdiction from holding out to the public or otherwise representing 
that the lawyer is admitted to practice in this jurisdiction), 8.1(a) (prohibiting a 
lawyer from knowingly making a false statement of material fact in connection with 
a disciplinary matter), and 8.4(c) (prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct 
involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation). 
{¶ 8} The parties stipulate that four aggravating factors are present in this 
case: prior discipline, acting with a dishonest or selfish motive, multiple offenses, 
and the submission of false statements or other deceptive practices during the 
disciplinary investigation.  See Gov.Bar R. V(13)(B)(1), (2), (4), and (6).  They also 
stipulate that the relevant mitigating factors are Fuhry’s eventual full and free 
disclosure of her actions to the board and cooperative attitude toward the 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
4
disciplinary proceedings and the imposition of other penalties or sanctions 
(presumably her loss of employment).  See Gov.Bar R. V(13)(C)(4) and (6). 
{¶ 9} The parties stipulate that a two-year suspension with the final six 
months stayed is the appropriate sanction for Fuhry’s misconduct.  Of the cases 
they cite in support of that sanction, Disciplinary Counsel v. Troller, 138 Ohio St.3d 
307, 2014-Ohio-60, 6 N.E.3d 1138, is most instructive. 
{¶ 10} Troller continued to serve as in-house counsel for a corporation for 
more than six years after we suspended his license for registration and CLE 
violations.  Id. at ¶ 5-8.  We found that his conduct violated Prof.Cond.R. 5.5(a) 
and 8.4(h) (prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct that adversely reflects 
on the lawyer’s fitness to practice law) and the corresponding Disciplinary Rules 
of the Code of Professional Responsibility (the predecessor of the Rules of 
Professional Conduct), as well as former Gov.Bar R. VI(5)(C) (prohibiting an 
attorney from practicing law while under an attorney-registration suspension).  
Troller at ¶ 9. 
{¶ 11} We found that aggravating factors included Troller’s prior attorney-
registration suspension and his pattern of misconduct involving multiple offenses.  
Id. at ¶ 11.  And as mitigating factors, we noted Troller’s history of community 
involvement, his good-faith effort to rectify his conduct once relator initiated his 
investigation, and his full cooperation in the disciplinary process.  Id.  Although we 
recognized that Troller had signed a contract with the Ohio Lawyers Assistance 
Program and received treatment for anxiety, we found that there was insufficient 
evidence for us to consider his disorder as a mitigating factor.  Id.  Weighing 
Troller’s conduct, the limited nature of his practice during his suspension, and his 
cooperation throughout the disciplinary process, we found that a two-year 
suspension with six months stayed on conditions was the appropriate sanction.  Id. 
at ¶ 16. 
January Term, 2017 
 
5
{¶ 12} Here, Fuhry engaged in the practice of law while under suspension 
for just a fraction of the time that Troller did.  And while Troller kept his job, Fuhry 
was fired as a result of her misconduct.  But Fuhry also misrepresented her 
disciplinary history on her securities form and made a false statement to relator in 
the initial stages of the disciplinary investigation. 
{¶ 13} Based on the foregoing, we agree that Fuhry’s conduct violated 
Prof.Cond.R. 5.5(a), 5.5(b)(2), 8.1(a), and 8.4(c) and Gov.Bar R. VI(10)(C)(1) and 
agree that a two-year suspension with the final six months stayed is the appropriate 
sanction for that misconduct.  Therefore, we adopt the parties’ consent-to-discipline 
agreement. 
{¶ 14} Accordingly, Gigi Hoang Fuhry is suspended from the practice of 
law in Ohio for two years with six months stayed on the condition that she engage 
in no further misconduct.  If Fuhry fails to comply with the condition of the stay, 
the stay will be lifted and she will serve the full two-year suspension.  Costs are 
taxed to Fuhry. 
Judgment accordingly. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and O’DONNELL, KENNEDY, FRENCH, O’NEILL, FISCHER, 
and DEWINE, JJ., concur. 
_________________ 
Scott J. Drexel, Disciplinary Counsel, and Catherine M. Russo, Assistant 
Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. 
Gigi Hoang Fuhry, pro se. 
_________________