Case Title: Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Hovey

Citation: 1997-Ohio-193

Docket Number: 19962788

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 1997-02-19T00:00:00Z

Document:
Cincinnati Bar Association v. Hovey. 
[Cite as Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Hovey (1997), ______Ohio St.3d______.] 
Attorneys at law -- Misconduct -- Six-month suspension with 
sanction stayed -- Entering into a business transaction with 
client when they have differing interests therein -- Neglecting 
an entrusted legal matter -- Engaging in conduct involving 
dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation. 
 
(No. 96-2788 -- Submitted February 19, 1997 -- Decided June 4, 
1997.) 
 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances 
and Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 95-95. 
 
In June 1991, respondent, Susan Jean Hovey of  Cincinnati, Ohio, 
Attorney Registration No. 0032967, entered into a business transaction with 
her client Marvin D. Moss whereby Moss transferred $10,000 to respondent 
in exchange for a mortgage on respondent’s residential real estate.  
Respondent did not fully apprise Moss of the details of the transaction and 
failed to record the mortgage.  Later, in March 1993, respondent executed a 
residential loan application to purchase other real estate, but did not list the 
Moss loan and mortgage among her liabilities. 
 
2
 
On December 4, 1995, relator, Cincinnati Bar Association, filed a 
complaint against respondent, charging that her actions constituted 
violations of DR 5-104(A) (a lawyer shall not enter into a business 
transaction with a client if they have differing interests therein, and if the 
client expects the lawyer to exercise his professional judgment therein for 
the protection of the client, unless the client has consented after full 
disclosure), 6-101(A)(3) (a lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted 
to him), and 1-102(A)(4) (a lawyer shall not engage in conduct involving 
dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation). 
 
A panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline 
of the Supreme Court (“board”) found the facts as stipulated by the parties 
and concluded that respondent had violated the Disciplinary Rules as 
charged.  The panel recommended that respondent be suspended from the 
practice of law for six months, that the entire suspension be stayed, and that 
during the six months relator monitor respondent’s legal practice.  The 
board adopted the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the panel.  
__________________________________ 
 
Henry E. Menninger and Naomi C. Dallob, for relator. 
 
3
 
James N. Perry, for respondent. 
__________________________________ 
 
Per Curiam.  The principle of loyalty is fundamental to the attorney-
client relationship and underlies the conflict-of-interest provisions of the 
Code of Professional Ethics.  Our Ethical Considerations provide in EC 5-3 
that a lawyer should not “make improper use of his professional relationship 
to influence his client to invest in an enterprise in which the lawyer is 
interested.”  These considerations of loyalty require that all transactions 
between a lawyer and a client be objectively fair to the client.  Also, the 
lawyer must ensure that the client has had an opportunity to consult 
independent counsel before entering into the transaction with respect to any 
matter not in the ordinary course of business. 
 
In this case respondent and Moss entered into a contract during the 
time that an attorney-client relationship existed between them.  Respondent 
not only had a different interest than Moss in the contract, which was not in 
the ordinary course of  business between them, but Moss also consented to 
the terms of the contract without full disclosure by respondent. 
 
4
 
In a separate but related matter, respondent later, when executing her  
personal loan application with a bank, failed to disclose the Moss loan and 
mortgage.  That, in itself, warrants a sanction under the Disciplinary Rule 
that proscribes conduct involving misrepresentation. 
 
Having accepted the board’s findings of fact, we agree with its 
conclusions and accept its recommendation.  Respondent is hereby 
suspended from the practice of law for six months with the entire 
suspension stayed. Relator shall monitor the law practice of respondent 
during the six-month period.  Costs taxed to the respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER and 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur. 
 
COOK, J., dissents. 
 
COOK, J., dissenting.  I would not stay respondent’s suspension.