Case Title: Medina Cty. Bar Assn. v. Heck

Citation: 2012-Ohio-5319

Docket Number: 2012-0988

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2012-11-20T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
Medina Cty. Bar Assn. v. Heck, Slip Opinion No. 2012-Ohio-5319.] 
 
 
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. 2012-OHIO-5319 
MEDINA COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION v. HECK. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets,  
it may be cited as Medina Cty. Bar Assn. v. Heck,  
Slip Opinion No. 2012-Ohio-5319.] 
Attorneys—Misconduct—Consent to discipline—One-year suspension, stayed on 
conditions. 
(No. 2012-0988—Submitted July 11, 2012—Decided November 20, 2012.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 11-107. 
__________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Jill R. Heck of Medina, Ohio, Attorney Registration 
No. 0023174, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1981.  On December 
5, 2011, relator, Medina County Bar Association, charged respondent with 
professional misconduct for missing a deadline to file a signed agreed judgment 
entry with a court, failing to notify a client that she did not carry malpractice 
insurance, and failing to deposit client funds in an interest-bearing client trust 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
account.  A panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline 
considered the cause on the parties’ consent-to-discipline agreement.  See BCGD 
Proc.Reg. 11. 
{¶ 2} In the parties’ consent-to-discipline agreement, Heck stipulates to 
the facts as alleged in relator’s complaint and agrees that her conduct violated 
Prof.Cond.R. 1.3 (requiring a lawyer to act with reasonable diligence in 
representing a client), 1.4(c) (requiring a lawyer to inform the client if the lawyer 
does not maintain professional-liability insurance), and 1.15 (requiring a lawyer to 
preserve the identity of client funds and promptly deliver funds or other property 
that the client is entitled to receive).  The parties stipulate that no aggravating 
factors exist and that mitigating factors include the absence of a prior disciplinary 
record, absence of a selfish motive, a timely good-faith effort to rectify the 
consequences of the misconduct, and a cooperative attitude toward the 
disciplinary proceedings. See BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(a), (b), (c), and (d).  
Based upon these factors, the parties stipulate that the appropriate sanction for 
Heck’s misconduct is a one-year suspension with the entire suspension stayed on 
the conditions that Heck enter into a contract with the Ohio Lawyers Assistance 
Program (“OLAP”), follow all recommendations made by OLAP, and commit no 
further misconduct. 
{¶ 3} The panel and board found that the consent-to-discipline agreement 
conforms to BCGD Proc.Reg. 11, and recommend that we adopt the agreement in 
its entirety.  We agree that Heck violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.3, 1.4(c), and 1.15 and 
that, consistent with the parties’ agreement, this conduct warrants a one-year 
suspension from the practice of law with the entire suspension stayed.  Therefore, 
we adopt the parties’ consent-to-discipline agreement. 
{¶ 4} Accordingly, Heck is hereby suspended from the practice of law for 
a period of one year with the entire suspension stayed on the conditions that she 
enter into a contract with OLAP, follow all recommendations made by OLAP, 
January Term, 2012 
3 
 
and commit no further misconduct.  If Heck fails to comply with the conditions of 
the stay, the stay will be lifted, and she will serve the entire one-year suspension.  
Costs are taxed to Heck. 
Judgment accordingly. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’DONNELL, 
LANZINGER, CUPP, and MCGEE BROWN, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
Eugene N. Elias; and Dickey and Crilly and John Crilly, for relator. 
Lesiak, Hensel & Hathcock, L.L.C., and Jennifer L. Hensal, for 
respondent. 
______________________