Case Title: Toledo Bar Assn. v. Hickman

Citation: 2007-Ohio-1256

Docket Number: 20061936

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2007-04-04T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as Toledo Bar Assn. v. Hickman, 113 Ohio St.3d 164, 2007-Ohio-1256.] 
 
 
TOLEDO BAR ASSOCIATION v. HICKMAN. 
[Cite as Toledo Bar Assn. v. Hickman, 113 Ohio St.3d 164, 2007-Ohio-1256.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Neglecting entrusted legal matters — One-year 
suspension. 
(No. 2006-1936 — Submitted November 29, 2006 — Decided April 4, 2007.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 05-075. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Gregg D. Hickman of Toledo, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0020032, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1978. 
{¶ 2} On December 28, 2005, we suspended respondent’s license to 
practice for one year, conditionally staying six months of the suspension, because 
he failed to timely file a wrongful-death action on behalf of the victim’s parents, 
he lied about the status of the victim's estate and settlement of the wrongful-death 
claim, and he dismissed a previous personal-injury action involving the victim 
without consent.  Toledo Bar Assn. v. Hickman, 107 Ohio St.3d 296, 2005-Ohio-
6513, 839 N.E.2d 24. 
{¶ 3} Prior to our suspension order, on October 10, 2005, relator, Toledo 
Bar Association, charged respondent in a two-count complaint with additional 
violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility.  A panel of the Board of 
Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline heard the cause, including the 
parties’ comprehensive stipulations, and made findings of fact, conclusions of 
law, and a recommendation.  The board adopted the panel’s findings of 
misconduct and recommended sanction. 
Misconduct 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
{¶ 4} Respondent stipulated and the board found that he had violated DR 
6-101(A)(3) (prohibiting a lawyer from neglecting an entrusted legal matter) with 
respect to both counts of the complaint. 
{¶ 5} As to Count I, the parties stipulated that David K. Henley retained 
respondent in October 2002 to help him reopen his divorce case, which had ended 
in 1987.  Henley wanted to prove by genetic testing that he was not, as he had 
stipulated and the court in that case had found, the father of a son born during the 
marriage in 1983.  Henley’s goal was to prevent the Social Security 
Administration from garnishing his monthly benefits to collect a $6,000 arrearage 
in child support. 
{¶ 6} Henley paid respondent $400 at the outset of the representation and 
agreed to pay an additional $350.  Respondent accepted these payments, agreeing 
to pursue the termination of Henley’s parentage status even though the claim was 
not legally viable at the time.  Respondent admitted that he should have realized 
this and told his client. 
{¶ 7} As to Count II, the parties stipulated that Bellia Garrobo hired 
respondent in March 2002 to defend her against two felony theft charges alleging 
that she had stolen from a home in which she worked as a maid.  At that time, 
Garrobo, a native of Mexico, spoke and understood little English.  In fact, a 
predecessor to respondent had filed a motion to suppress her confession, arguing 
that she had not understood her Miranda rights, and the court eventually granted 
that motion. 
{¶ 8} Respondent relied on one of Garrobo’s friends to act as an 
interpreter during their meetings and to prepare for trial.  He intended to use the 
same friend as an interpreter during Garrobo’s trial; however, he also listed the 
friend as a witness, which, because of a court-ordered separation of witnesses, 
precluded the friend from remaining in the courtroom during the trial.  
January Term, 2007 
3 
Respondent tried the case without an interpreter to explain the proceedings to his 
client, and Garrobo was found guilty. 
{¶ 9} Garrobo discharged respondent following the verdict and obtained 
new counsel.  The successor counsel moved to set aside the verdict on the basis of 
ineffective assistance of counsel, and the court granted the motion.  Garrobo 
ultimately pleaded guilty to one misdemeanor charge and was placed on 
probation. 
Recommended Sanction 
{¶ 10} In their stipulations, the parties also proposed a sanction for 
respondent’s misconduct.  Citing the mitigating effect of respondent’s cooperation 
in the disciplinary proceeding, the parties advocated a one-year suspension of 
respondent’s license to be served in addition to his prior suspension.  Adopting 
the panel report, the board recommended a one-year suspension to be served 
consecutively. 
Review 
{¶ 11} We agree that respondent violated DR 6-101(A)(3) as found by the 
board and that the recommendation is appropriate.  Respondent is therefore 
suspended from the practice of law in Ohio for one year.  Costs are taxed to 
respondent. 
 Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, 
C.J., 
PFEIFER, 
LUNDBERG 
STRATTON, 
O’CONNOR 
and 
O’DONNELL, JJ., concur. 
 
LANZINGER and CUPP, JJ., not participating. 
__________________ 
 
David F. Cooper, Michael F. Jilek Sr., and Jonathan Cherry, Bar Counsel, 
for relator. 
 
James D. Caruso, for respondent. 
______________________