Case Title: Disciplinary Counsel v. Hanni

Citation: 2002-Ohio-1052

Docket Number: 20011133

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2002-03-13T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Hanni, 94 Ohio St.3d 446, 2002-Ohio-1052.] 
 
 
OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL ET AL. v. HANNI. 
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Hanni (2002), 94 Ohio St.3d 446.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Six-month suspension with entire sanction 
stayed — Engaging in conduct adversely reflecting on fitness to practice 
law. 
(No. 01-1133 — Submitted October 2, 2001 — Decided March 13, 2002.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 00-08. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam.  On February 14, 2000, relator Disciplinary Counsel filed a 
complaint charging that respondent, Don L. Hanni of Youngstown, Ohio, 
Attorney Registration No. 0007862, violated several provisions of the Code of 
Professional Responsibility.  Relators, Disciplinary Counsel and the Mahoning 
County Bar Association, filed an amended complaint against Hanni on August 3, 
2000.  Respondent answered, and the matter was submitted to a panel of the 
Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court 
(“board”). 
 
After a hearing, the panel found that in August 1995, Patrick C. Connolly 
sought advice from respondent about a potential extortion scheme whereby an 
anonymous party indicated that Connolly would be indicted unless he paid 
$60,000.  The panel believed that at that first meeting with Connolly, which lasted 
about twenty minutes, respondent telephoned the prosecutor’s office and 
determined that no charges were pending against Connolly.  At the conclusion of 
the meeting, respondent asked Connolly for a retainer, and the next day, Connolly 
returned, discussed the matter with respondent for about fifteen minutes, and gave 
respondent the retainer.  Respondent gave Connolly a receipt for $1,500. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
During these meetings, Connolly did not identify any persons who might 
be involved in the attempted extortion.  Respondent told Connolly that he would 
investigate further and would contact Connolly.  Connolly was never charged 
with a crime.  Connolly called respondent after these two meetings but was unable 
to reach him.  Respondent, however, did not formally withdraw from 
representation.  Connolly did not ask for a refund of the retainer, and respondent 
did not return any money to Connolly. 
 
Three and a half years later, in May 1999, a Columbiana County Grand 
Jury indicted Russell J. Saadey, Jr. for, among other things, attempted extortion of 
Connolly in 1995.  One of the attorneys present for the arrest and arraignment of 
Saadey was respondent.  At a meeting with Connolly that was arranged by an FBI 
agent who perceived a conflict in respondent’s representation of Saadey, 
respondent said that he had searched his files and could find no reference to a 
previous meeting with Connolly.  While he may have met with Connolly in 1995, 
respondent said, he could not recall how he might have represented him.  As the 
discussion with the FBI agent and Connolly progressed, respondent said that he 
began to remember a few things and would search “one more place.”  Shortly 
thereafter, respondent sent the agent the notes of his 1995 meeting with Connolly. 
 
Respondent then wrote to the agent that he saw no conflict in his 
representation of Saadey and, moreover, Connolly had waived any attorney-client 
privilege.  However, on motion of the county prosecutor, the Court of Common 
Pleas of Columbiana County disqualified respondent from representing Saadey.  
During the hearing on the motion, respondent attacked the credibility of the 
state’s claim that Connolly had engaged respondent. 
 
Respondent humiliated and sought to ridicule his former client by denying 
his prior representation and by attacking Connolly’s credibility, when in fact 
respondent had accepted a substantial retainer from Connolly.  Respondent’s 
failure to keep adequate records and return the unearned retainer supports the 
January Term, 2002 
3 
panel’s conclusion that respondent violated DR 5-105(A) (a lawyer shall refuse 
employment if the exercise of his independent professional judgment will be 
adversely affected), 1-102(A)(5) (a lawyer shall not engage in conduct prejudicial 
to the administration of justice), and 1-102(A)(6) (a lawyer shall not engage in 
conduct adversely reflecting on the lawyer’s fitness to practice law).  Noting 
respondent’s long and distinguished legal career and his role as a community 
leader, and considering the fact that he had no prior disciplinary record, the panel 
recommended that respondent receive a public reprimand.  The board adopted the 
findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the panel. 
 
We have reviewed the record and note that respondent’s initial meeting 
with Connolly involved only Connolly’s concern about possible criminal charges 
against him.  Neither Connolly’s testimony, nor the material that Connolly gave to 
respondent, nor respondent’s notes indicate that Connolly told respondent that 
Saadey was involved in attempting to extort money from him.  Also, the record 
does not support the board’s finding that “[a]t that initial meeting respondent 
informed Connolly that no charges were pending.”  On the contrary, Connolly 
testified that after making a phone call to the prosecutor’s office, respondent told 
Connolly that he would find out whether there were charges pending and get back 
to him.  It was a coworker with political connections who told Connolly that no 
charges would be filed against him. 
 
However, because respondent kept no clear record of his representation of 
Connolly and made no attempt to return Connolly’s unearned retainer when he 
had a duty to do so if he no longer intended to represent Connolly, we find that a 
more severe penalty is warranted. 
 
Therefore, we hereby suspend respondent from the practice of law for six 
months with the entire six-month suspension stayed.  Costs are taxed to 
respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
DOUGLAS, ACTING C.J., SHAW, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PIETRYKOWSKI 
and LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur. 
 
COOK, J., concurs in judgment. 
 
STEPHEN R. SHAW, J., of the Third Appellate District, sitting for MOYER, 
C.J. 
 
MARK L. PIETRYKOWSKI, J., of the Sixth Appellate District, sitting for 
PFEIFER, J. 
__________________ 
 
Jonathan E. Coughlan, Disciplinary Counsel, and Stacy Solochek 
Beckman, Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator Office of Disciplinary 
Counsel. 
 
Larry D. Wilkes, for relator Mahoning County Bar Association. 
 
Vincent E. Gilmartin, for respondent. 
__________________