Case Title: Disciplinary Counsel v. Milhoan

Citation: 2014-Ohio-5459

Docket Number: 2014-0201

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2014-12-17T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
Disciplinary Counsel v. Milhoan, Slip Opinion No. 2014-Ohio-5459.] 
 
 
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. 2014-OHIO-5459 
DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. MILHOAN. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as Disciplinary Counsel v. Milhoan,  
Slip Opinion No. 2014-Ohio-5459.] 
Attorneys—Misconduct—Excessive fees—Handling a legal matter without 
adequate preparation—Conduct adversely reflecting on fitness to practice 
law. 
(No. 2014-0201—Submitted April 8, 2014—Decided December 17, 2014.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 2012-040. 
_______________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Douglas Alan Milhoan of Middlebranch, Ohio, 
Attorney Registration No. 0073219, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 
2001. 
{¶ 2} On May 14, 2012, relator filed a complaint with the Board of 
Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline, charging Milhoan with two 
violations of the Disciplinary Rules of the Code of Professional Conduct and three 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
2
violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct arising from his conduct in filing 
of virtually identical briefs in 31 of 35 criminal appeals that he was appointed to 
handle from decisions of the Ashland County Court of Common Pleas from 2006 
to 2010.  Milhoan waived his right to a probable-cause hearing, and after he filed 
his answer, the matter was set for hearing. 
{¶ 3} At the January 16, 2013 hearing, a panel of the board received the 
parties’ stipulations of fact and 36 stipulated exhibits and heard testimony from 
Milhoan.  The day before the hearing, Milhoan had disclosed to relator that he had 
been abusing alcohol at the time of his misconduct.  He testified that he began 
drinking excessively during a series of challenges in his personal life including his 
responsibilities as the primary caretaker for his mother (who had suffered a stroke 
in 1993), juggling his responsibilities for his mother’s care with those of 
parenthood following the birth of his first child in 2004, his mother’s declining 
health leading up to her death in late 2004, and several other losses of a more 
personal nature in subsequent years.  He explained that he had not previously 
mentioned his drinking problem, because he was ashamed and did not want to use 
it as an excuse for his misconduct.  He reported that he had stopped drinking in 
January 2011 and had attended a couple of Alcoholics Anonymous meetings with 
a neighbor but stated that he had never spoken with a professional about his 
problem.  After hearing Milhoan’s testimony, the panel continued the hearing to 
enable him to obtain an evaluation through the Ohio Lawyers Assistance Program 
(“OLAP”). 
{¶ 4} When the hearing resumed on October 21, 2013, the panel heard 
additional testimony from Megan R. Snyder, M.S.W., L.I.S.W., of OLAP, and 
Milhoan.  Thereafter, the panel issued a report containing findings of fact and 
conclusions of law and recommending that we suspend Milhoan for one year but 
stay that suspension on the condition that he make restitution of $8,757.50 to the 
Ohio Public Defender’s Office and the Ashland County auditor by paying 50 
January Term, 2014 
 
3
percent of his disposable income until the debt is paid in full.  The board adopted 
the panel’s report in its entirety. 
{¶ 5} We adopt the board’s findings of fact and misconduct.  We suspend 
Milhoan from the practice of law in Ohio for two years, all stayed on the 
conditions that he engage in no further misconduct, remain in compliance with his 
OLAP contract, and make restitution of $8,757.50, to be apportioned between the 
Ohio Public Defender’s Office and the Ashland County auditor according to the 
percentage that each office pays toward the fees for court-appointed counsel in 
Ashland County. 
Misconduct 
{¶ 6} Since being admitted to the bar in 2001, respondent has been a solo 
practitioner.  In recent years, his practice has consisted of court-appointed work, 
primarily in juvenile court.  But from 2006 to 2010, the Ashland County Court of 
Common Pleas appointed Milhoan to handle 35 criminal appeals.  Of those 35 
cases, 31 involved appeals from guilty pleas.  In each of those cases, Milhoan 
filed appellate briefs that were identical except for certain “case-specific 
modifications such as names, dates, crimes, sentences, and potential mitigation,” 
according to the stipulations. 
{¶ 7} The parties stipulated and the board found that each brief (1) was ten 
pages long, (2) repeated the same grammatical errors, (3) raised the same 
assignment of error—“The imposition of a prison sentence in this case imposes an 
unnecessary burden on state’s resources”—(4) failed to cite any case law in 
support of the assigned error, and (5) failed to include any information regarding 
the cost of incarceration or why the appellant’s sentence would burden the state’s 
resources.  The briefs cited only one case (for the definition of clear and 
convincing evidence) and four sections of the Revised Code—three related to 
sentencing and one regarding appeal as a matter of right.  And although these 31 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
4
briefs were virtually identical, in 29 of these cases, Milhoan requested at least 
three extensions of time to file his appellate briefs. 
{¶ 8} Milhoan challenged relator’s allegation that he did not provide good 
service for the criminal defendants he was appointed to represent, explaining that 
the majority of the appeals were taken from convictions upon guilty pleas and did 
not present any appealable issues.  Although he acknowledged that his briefs were 
sloppy, he testified that when he filed them, he believed that they were better than 
Anders briefs.  See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 
L.Ed.2d 493 (1967) (permitting an attorney who, after conscientious examination 
of the record, concludes that a criminal appeal is wholly frivolous to so advise the 
court and request permission to withdraw, provided that his request is 
accompanied with a brief identifying anything in the record that could arguably 
support the client’s appeal).  He now recognizes that it would have been more 
appropriate to file Anders briefs in many of these cases. 
{¶ 9} Milhoan fully acknowledged that he did not keep proper track of the 
time he spent on his appellate cases, testifying that he would “go back and 
recreate [his] time” when he completed his fee applications.  He submitted fee 
applications to the Fifth District Court of Appeals in 28 of the 31 cases involving 
appeals of guilty pleas, billing an average of 18.49 hours ($924.50) per case.  And 
he admitted that in three instances he billed two separate clients for the same drive 
to the Ashland County clerk of courts to file briefs (approximately 3.0 hours 
round trip).  Relator calculated that Milhoan double-billed for 8.5 hours of travel 
time, for a total of $425, and Milhoan did not object to this calculation.  After 
relator notified him of the investigation, Milhoan elected not to submit fee 
applications for approximately 12 pending appellate matters that he had been 
appointed to handle. 
{¶ 10} The parties stipulated and the panel and board found that Milhoan 
violated DR 6-101(A)(2) (prohibiting a lawyer from handling a legal matter 
January Term, 2014 
 
5
without adequate preparation) and Prof.Cond.R. 1.1 (requiring a lawyer to provide 
competent representation to a client) by submitting nearly identical briefs in 31 
separate cases without providing any case law to support his sole assignment of 
error.  He also violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.5(a) (prohibiting a lawyer from making an 
agreement for, charging, or collecting an illegal or clearly excessive fee) by 
failing to properly track the hours he spent working on each case and submitting 
fee applications with inflated hours.  Lastly, the board found that Milhoan’s 
practice of filing of nearly identical briefs for each of his indigent clients’ 
criminal appeals provided those clients with substandard representation, the 
egregiousness of which was further compounded by his continuous pattern of 
overbilling the appointed-counsel system for this substandard work.  Therefore, 
the board made the additional finding that his conduct adversely reflected on his 
fitness to practice law in violation of DR 1-102(A)(6) and Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(h) 
(both prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct that adversely reflects on the 
lawyer’s fitness to practice law). 
{¶ 11} Having determined that they are supported by clear and convincing 
evidence, we adopt the board’s findings of fact and misconduct. 
Sanction 
{¶ 12} When imposing sanctions for attorney misconduct, we consider 
relevant factors, including the ethical duties that the lawyer violated and the 
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). 
{¶ 13} The board found that just two aggravating factors are present.  
First, Milhoan engaged in a pattern of misconduct, submitting what was 
essentially the same brief in 31 separate cases and billing an average of 18.49 
hours ($924.50) for what was in effect the same work.  See BCGD Proc.Reg. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
6
10(B)(1)(c).  And while noting that there was no evidence that any of Milhoan’s 
clients suffered harm as a result of his conduct, the board found that the judicial 
system and the public were harmed by his overbilling for indigent representation.  
See BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(h); Disciplinary Counsel v. Holland, 106 Ohio 
St.3d 372, 2005-Ohio-5322, 835 N.E.2d 361, ¶ 22 (overbilling the state for 
providing representation to indigent clients causes “serious harm * * * to the 
taxpaying public, the judicial system, and the legal profession”). 
{¶ 14} As mitigating factors, the board found that Milhoan has no prior 
disciplinary record, has accepted full responsibility for his misconduct, has 
provided full and free disclosure to the board, has maintained a cooperative 
attitude toward the disciplinary proceedings, and has a positive reputation in the 
legal community apart from the charged misconduct.  See BCGD Proc.Reg. 
10(B)(2)(a), (d), and (e).  He has also been diagnosed with a chemical dependency 
on alcohol that contributed to his misconduct, has entered into a three-year 
contract with OLAP requiring him, among other things, to attend at least two 
Alcoholics Anonymous (“AA”) meetings per week, has achieved a sustained 
period of full remission, and has received a prognosis from a qualified healthcare 
professional that he is capable of practicing law in a competent, ethical, and 
professional manner.  When the hearing reconvened on October 21, 2013, Megan 
Snyder testified that as part of Milhoan’s OLAP contract, he had been attending at 
least three AA meetings per week, had obtained a sponsor, had been calling to 
check in with OLAP three times per week, and had begun individual counseling 
to deal with low-level depression.  Therefore, the board concluded that his alcohol 
dependency qualified as a mitigating factor pursuant to BCGD Proc.Reg. 
10(B)(2)(g). 
{¶ 15} Relator recommended that Milhoan be suspended from the practice 
of law in Ohio for at least one year but that the suspension be fully stayed.  
Relator stated that neither the Ohio Public Defender’s Office nor the Ashland 
January Term, 2014 
 
7
County auditor offered any estimate on the amount of restitution that should be 
ordered.  And acknowledging the difficulty of determining the value of the 
services Milhoan had provided, relator suggested that Milhoan be required to pay 
restitution of $8,757.50—representing 50 percent of the fees charged in the cases 
at issue, plus the $425 he overbilled for trips he made to the Ashland County clerk 
of court, with a credit of $5,400 representing one-half of the fees he agreed to 
forgo in 12 additional appellate cases. 
{¶ 16} In support of its recommended sanction, the board relies on our 
decisions in Disciplinary Counsel v. Agopian, 112 Ohio St.3d 103, 2006-Ohio-
6510, 858 N.E.2d 368, and Disciplinary Counsel v. Holland, 106 Ohio St.3d 372, 
2005-Ohio-5322, 835 N.E.2d 361. 
{¶ 17} Agopian submitted inaccurate fee applications for court-appointed 
work, some of which gave the appearance that he had performed more than 24 
hours of work on a given day.  We found, however, that while he did not 
accurately record the specific number of hours that he spent on each case or the 
exact days on which he had performed the work, he had actually performed all of 
the work for which he had billed.  Indeed, the evidence demonstrated that he 
routinely performed services far exceeding the time for which he submitted 
payment requests.  Acknowledging that Agopian did not have a prior disciplinary 
record or possess any exploitative motive, and crediting him for his full 
cooperation in the disciplinary process, his acceptance of responsibility for his 
conduct, and the more than 40 letters attesting to his integrity, reputation, and 
professionalism, we rejected the recommended sanction of a one-year suspension 
and concluded that a public reprimand was the appropriate sanction for Agopian’s 
misconduct. 
{¶ 18} Holland, in contrast, did not apportion the per-hour charges for his 
services in court on a given day among his court-appointed cases.  If he 
represented three separate clients in a single three-hour court session, he would 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
8
claim three hours for each client, regardless of the amount of time he spent on the 
individual case.  Holland’s in-court billing sometimes exceeded the number of 
hours that the juvenile court in which he practiced was open each day.  This 
billing practice resulted in outrageous fees, although the overcharges were not 
readily apparent, because each case was billed on a separate form and filed at a 
separate time.  Finding that Holland’s pattern and practice of double billing was 
dishonest and deceptive and that its impropriety should have been obvious to him, 
we rejected the board’s recommended sanction of a one-year suspension with six 
months stayed on conditions and imposed a one-year actual suspension from the 
practice of law and conditioned his reinstatement on the payment of full 
restitution. 
{¶ 19} The board determined that Milhoan’s conduct, when considered 
with the relevant aggravating and mitigating factors, falls somewhere between 
that of Agopian and Holland.  Therefore, the board recommends that we suspend 
Milhoan for one year but stay the entire suspension on the conditions that he 
engage in no further misconduct and remain in compliance with his OLAP 
contract.  The board further recommends that Milhoan be required to make 
restitution of $8,757.50, but noting that his income in 2012 was just $12,919, the 
board recommends that he be required to pay 50 percent of his disposable income 
until the obligation is paid in full. 
{¶ 20} We believe that a two-year suspension stayed on conditions is the 
appropriate sanction for Milhoan’s misconduct.  We agree that he should be 
required to make restitution of $8,757.50 to be apportioned between the Ohio 
Public Defender’s Office and the Ashland County auditor according to the 
percentage that each office pays toward the fees for court-appointed counsel in 
Ashland County. 
{¶ 21} Accordingly, Douglas Alan Milhoan is suspended from the practice 
of law in Ohio for two years and ordered to make restitution of $8,757.50 to be 
January Term, 2014 
 
9
apportioned between the Ohio Public Defender’s Office and the Ashland County 
auditor according to the percentage that each office pays toward the fees for 
court-appointed counsel in Ashland County.  The entire suspension shall be 
stayed on the conditions that he engage in no further misconduct, remain in 
compliance with his OLAP contract, and make full restitution to the Ohio Public 
Defender’s Office and the Ashland County auditor.  If Milhoan fails to comply 
with the conditions of the stay, the stay will be lifted and he will serve the full 
two-year suspension.  Costs are taxed to Milhoan. 
Judgment accordingly. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, KENNEDY, 
FRENCH, and O’NEILL, JJ., concur. 
_________________________ 
Scott J. Drexel, Disciplinary Counsel, and Joseph M. Caligiuri, Senior 
Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. 
Douglas Alan Milhoan, pro se. 
_________________________