Case Title: Disciplinary Counsel v. Hiltbrand

Citation: 2006-Ohio-4250

Docket Number: 20060774

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2006-08-30T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Hiltbrand, 110 Ohio St.3d 214, 2006-Ohio-4250.] 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. HILTBRAND. 
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Hiltbrand,  
110 Ohio St.3d 214, 2006-Ohio-4250.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Conduct prejudicial to the administration of 
justice — Conduct adversely reflecting on fitness to practice law — 
Indefinite suspension. 
(No. 2006-0774—Submitted June 7, 2006—Decided August 30, 2006.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 03-090. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Eileen Brubeck Hiltbrand of Columbus, Ohio, 
Attorney Registration No. 0069807, was admitted to the Ohio bar in 1998. 
{¶ 2} On January 9, 2004, relator, Disciplinary Counsel, filed an 
amended 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 2005.  The panel then prepared written findings of fact, conclusions of 
law, and a recommendation, all of which the board adopted. 
Misconduct 
Count I 
{¶ 3} In March 2001, respondent was charged with the offense of 
operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated.  She later pleaded guilty to reckless 
operation of a motor vehicle and was sentenced to 90 days in jail, with 87 days of 
the sentence suspended.  She was also fined and placed on probation for two 
years. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
{¶ 4} In July 2001, respondent was arrested for driving while her 
driver’s license was suspended.  She later pleaded guilty to that charge and was 
sentenced to 180 days in jail, with the entire jail term suspended.  She was also 
fined and placed on probation for two years. 
{¶ 5} In September 2001, respondent was charged with the offense of 
telephone harassment.  She later pleaded no contest to the charge and was 
sentenced to 180 days in jail, with the entire jail term suspended.  She was also 
fined and placed on probation for two years. 
{¶ 6} In May 2002, respondent was arrested for several offenses, 
including operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated, driving while her driver’s 
license was suspended, endangering children, and possession of an open container 
of alcohol in a moving motor vehicle.  Those charges stemmed from an 
anonymous tip that respondent had appeared to be intoxicated when she picked 
her son up from his school.  Respondent pleaded no contest to operating a motor 
vehicle while intoxicated, and she was sentenced to 180 days in jail, with 170 
days of the sentence suspended.  She was also fined and placed on probation for 
five years, and her driver’s license was suspended for two years. 
{¶ 7} Respondent was argumentative during her arrest on the May 2002 
charges, which led to her indictment on three felony counts of assault.  She later 
pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge of resisting arrest and was fined $100. 
{¶ 8} In January 2003, respondent was charged with the offense of 
criminal trespassing.  She later pleaded guilty to a charge of disorderly conduct 
and was fined $100. 
{¶ 9} We agree with the board’s finding that respondent’s actions 
violated DR 1-102(A)(5) (barring conduct prejudicial to the administration of 
justice) and 1-102(A)(6) (barring conduct that adversely reflects on a lawyer’s 
fitness to practice law). 
Count II 
January Term, 2006 
3 
{¶ 10} In connection with a civil lawsuit filed by respondent against her 
ex-husband, a magistrate issued a protective order barring the parties from 
discussing certain deposition testimony outside a courtroom setting.  In violation 
of the order, respondent disclosed the protected testimony to her daughter. 
{¶ 11} We agree with the board’s finding that respondent’s action violated 
DR 1-102(A)(5) and 1-102(A)(6). 
Sanction 
{¶ 12} In recommending a sanction for this misconduct, the board 
considered the aggravating and mitigating factors listed in Section 10 of the Rules 
and Regulations Governing Procedure on Complaints and Hearings Before the 
Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline (“BCGD Proc.Reg.”).  
The one aggravating factor identified by the board was respondent’s participation 
in a pattern of misconduct.  BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(c).  The board also noted 
that although respondent was aware of the time and place of her disciplinary 
hearing, she failed to appear. 
{¶ 13} According to the board, respondent appears to be suffering from an 
alcohol-dependency problem that has contributed to her misconduct.  Because she 
has not completed an approved treatment program, however, that dependency 
cannot be considered a mitigating factor under BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(g). 
{¶ 14} Scott Mote, executive director of the Ohio Lawyers Assistance 
Program, testified that he “wouldn’t want her as a fellow member of the bar [and] 
would not want her representing clients” because respondent is in “very deep” 
denial about her alcohol problem and has not been willing to undergo treatment 
for that problem.  Mote also stated that “hope’s not lost” for respondent but that 
she must stop drinking. 
{¶ 15} Relator and respondent’s counsel both recommended that 
respondent be indefinitely suspended from the practice of law.  The panel and the 
board likewise recommended an indefinite suspension. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
{¶ 16} We have reviewed the board’s report and agree with the board’s 
recommended sanction.  As the board noted, respondent’s misconduct did not 
involve her work on behalf of clients, and there is no evidence that her actions 
harmed any clients.  Her own lawyer told the board that respondent is not fit to 
practice law at the present time, however, because she has not addressed her 
alcohol-dependency problem.  We agree. 
{¶ 17} In other cases involving attorneys who have engaged in 
misconduct attributable to untreated alcoholism, we have imposed indefinite 
suspensions.  See, e.g., Columbus Bar Assn. v. McCorkle, 105 Ohio St.3d 430, 
2005-Ohio-2588, 828 N.E.2d 99; Lake Cty. Bar Assn. v. Mazzocco (1999), 85 
Ohio St.3d 399, 709 N.E.2d 114; Toledo Bar Assn. v. Hayes (1999), 85 Ohio 
St.3d 336, 708 N.E.2d 201; Disciplinary Counsel v. Brown (1996), 77 Ohio St.3d 
91, 671 N.E.2d 232. 
{¶ 18} Accordingly, respondent is hereby indefinitely suspended from the 
practice of law in Ohio.  The court will not consider respondent’s reinstatement 
until a medical professional has certified that respondent has completed a 
sustained period of recovery from alcohol dependency and until respondent has 
successfully complied with the terms of a contract with the Ohio Lawyers 
Assistance Program.  Costs are taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., RESNICK, PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’CONNOR, 
O’DONNELL and LANZINGER, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
 
Jonathan E. Coughlan, Disciplinary Counsel, and Lori J. Brown, First 
Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. 
 
Gerald R. Walton, for respondent. 
______________________