Case Title: Disciplinary Counsel v. Hofelich

Citation: 2007-Ohio-4269

Docket Number: 

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2007-08-29T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Hofelich, 115 Ohio St.3d 14, 2007-Ohio-4269.] 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. HOFELICH. 
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Hofelich, 115 Ohio St.3d 14, 2007-Ohio-4269.] 
Attorneys — Misconduct — Failure to cooperate in a disciplinary investigation — 
Six-month suspension. 
(No. 2007-0748 — Submitted June 6, 2007 — Decided August 29, 2007.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 06-047. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, James Albert Hofelich of Westlake, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0033009, was admitted to the Ohio bar in 1969.  For the reasons 
that follow, we conclude that respondent’s license to practice law in Ohio should 
be suspended for six months. 
{¶ 2} On June 12, 2006, relator, Disciplinary Counsel, filed a complaint 
charging respondent with professional misconduct.  Respondent filed an answer 
to the complaint, and a panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline held a hearing on the complaint in December 2006.  The panel then 
prepared written findings of fact, conclusions of law, and a recommended 
sanction, all of which the board adopted. 
Misconduct 
{¶ 3} Relator received a grievance against respondent from Theodore 
Caputa in February 2005.  Relator sent a letter of inquiry about the grievance to 
respondent at his business address in March 2005, and respondent promptly 
replied that same month. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
{¶ 4} Relator received another grievance against respondent in May 
2005.  That second grievance – from Michael Jelepis – alleged that respondent 
had failed to return materials to Jelepis despite repeated requests.  Relator sent a 
letter of inquiry about the second grievance by certified mail to respondent at his 
business address in May 2005.  The certified letter was accepted at that address by 
R.L. Booker, but respondent never replied to the letter.  R.L. Booker signed for a 
second letter of inquiry from relator about the Jelepis grievance in June 2005, but 
again, respondent failed to reply to the letter.  Relator then sent a third certified 
letter to respondent in June 2005 about the Jelepis grievance, and though the 
return receipt for that letter was likewise signed by someone at respondent’s 
address, respondent did not reply to the letter. 
{¶ 5} In December 2005, relator sent a fourth certified letter to 
respondent about the grievance.  That fourth letter was mailed to a new home 
address that respondent had provided to this court’s attorney-registration office.  
The letter was returned “unclaimed.”  In December 2005, relator sent a fifth 
certified letter to respondent about the grievance.  That letter – which was sent to 
respondent’s business address – was accepted by R.L. Booker, but again 
respondent failed to reply. 
{¶ 6} On December 23, 2005, relator sent a subpoena to respondent by 
certified mail at his business address.  The subpoena directed respondent to 
appear at relator’s office for a deposition at 10:00 a.m. on January 12, 2006, and 
instructed him to bring his complete files for the Caputa and Jelepis matters.  
Respondent did not appear for the deposition. 
{¶ 7} At 10:30 a.m. on the day of the scheduled deposition, relator called 
respondent’s office and left a voicemail message indicating that the deposition 
would begin in 30 minutes.  At 11:00 a.m., relator again called respondent’s 
office and left a voicemail message indicating that the deposition would proceed 
at that time. 
January Term, 2007 
3 
{¶ 8} Although respondent never replied to any of the letters of inquiry 
about the Jelepis matter, Jelepis advised relator that a large package containing 
some of his file materials was delivered to his home on January 23, 2006.  On 
January 27, 2006, relator received a voicemail message from respondent stating, 
“Hi my name is Jim Hofelich.  I really didn’t know anything about the deposition, 
but I wondered if there was anything I could do to repair this situation.  If you 
could, give me a call at 440-617-2800.  Thank you.  Bye.”  Relator returned the 
call and left a voicemail for respondent on January 31, 2006.  Respondent did not 
return relator’s call or attempt to call relator again. 
{¶ 9} On February 23, 2006, relator sent a letter to respondent at his 
business address, advising him that its investigation was concluded and that a 
formal complaint would be filed.  Respondent made no attempt to contact relator. 
{¶ 10} On May 1, 2006, relator again sent a letter to respondent at his 
business address, advising him that relator intended to file a formal complaint 
with the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline.  Respondent 
never replied.  On May 19, 2006, relator sent a letter and a copy of the complaint 
to respondent at his business address.  Respondent did not reply to the letter. 
{¶ 11} We agree with the parties’ stipulation and the board’s finding that 
respondent’s actions violated Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) (requiring attorneys to 
cooperate with and assist in any disciplinary investigation). 
Sanction 
{¶ 12} Relator recommended that we impose a stayed six-month 
suspension for this misconduct, while respondent requested a public reprimand.  
The panel and the board accepted relator’s recommendation.  Respondent has 
filed no objections to the board’s findings or its recommendation. 
{¶ 13} In imposing a sanction for attorney misconduct, we consider the 
aggravating and mitigating factors listed in Section 10 of the Rules and 
Regulations Governing Procedure on Complaints and Hearings Before the Board 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline (“BCGD Proc.Reg.”).  The board 
identified one mitigating factor: the absence of any prior disciplinary record.  
BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(a). 
{¶ 14} After weighing that mitigating factor and respondent’s misconduct, 
we conclude that a more severe sanction than the one recommended by the board 
is appropriate.  As we recently explained:  
{¶ 15} “Attorneys must timely respond to a disciplinary inquiry, whether 
the inquiry relates to the lawyer’s own conduct or that of a colleague.  
Compliance with this obligation is critical to the effectiveness of the legal 
profession’s effort to monitor itself.  Although every communication from a 
disciplinary agency should be taken seriously, the initial inquiry about a client 
grievance should receive the respondent lawyer’s immediate and professional 
attention.”  Cleveland Bar Assn. v. James, 109 Ohio St.3d 310, 2006-Ohio-2424, 
847 N.E.2d 438, ¶ 8. 
{¶ 16} In the James case, we imposed a one-year suspension on an 
attorney who had failed to respond to letters and phone calls from a local bar 
association about a client’s grievance, and we noted that the attorney’s “utter lack 
of cooperation” was “disrespectful to the legal profession and to respondent’s 
colleagues in his community.”  James, 109 Ohio St.3d 310, 2006-Ohio-2424, 847 
N.E.2d 438, ¶ 9.  The same is true in this case, though the respondent – unlike the 
respondent in James – did answer the complaint once it was filed and did 
participate in the disciplinary hearing.  For that reason, a six-month suspension 
rather than the one-year suspension that we imposed in James is warranted.  Yet 
because respondent ignored relator’s repeated inquiries for more than a year, we 
are unwilling to stay the suspension.  Respondent’s actions led relator’s staff and 
the panel members to devote many hours to an investigation that could and should 
have been resolved much more quickly and at much less cost.  His pugnacious 
refusal to respond to relator’s inquiries about a client’s grievance “calls into doubt 
January Term, 2007 
5 
respondent’s fitness to serve other clients or potential clients.”  James, 109 Ohio 
St.3d 310, 2006-Ohio-2424, 847 N.E.2d 438, ¶ 9. 
{¶ 17} Accordingly, respondent is hereby suspended from the practice of 
law in Ohio for six months.  Costs are taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’CONNOR, LANZINGER and CUPP, 
JJ., concur. 
 
PFEIFER and O’DONNELL, JJ., would suspend respondent from the practice 
of law in Ohio for six months but stay the suspension. 
__________________ 
 
Jonathan E. Coughlan, Disciplinary Counsel, and Carol A. Costa, 
Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. 
 
Bricker & Eckler L.L.P., and Alvin E. Mathews Jr., for respondent. 
______________________