Case Title: Columbus Bar Assn. v. Hayes

Citation: 2008-Ohio-2466

Docket Number: 20072381

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2008-05-29T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as Columbus Bar Assn. v. Hayes, 118 Ohio St.3d 336, 2008-Ohio-2466.] 
 
 
COLUMBUS BAR ASSOCIATION v. HAYES. 
[Cite as Columbus Bar Assn. v. Hayes, 118 Ohio St.3d 336, 2008-Ohio-2466.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Multiple violations of the Disciplinary Rules — 
Suspension, partially stayed, followed by probation. 
(No. 2007-2381 — Submitted February 27, 2008 — Decided May 29, 2008.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 07-020. 
__________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Michael J. Hayes of Columbus, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0069111, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1998.  
Respondent voluntarily ceased practicing on December 21, 2006, and is currently 
not registered with the Supreme Court of Ohio. 
{¶ 2} Relator, Columbus Bar Association, charged respondent with 
numerous violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility.  A panel of the 
Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline held a hearing on the 
complaint and considered the joint stipulations of the parties.  The panel found 
misconduct and recommended sanctions, all of which the board adopted.  The 
board recommends that we suspend respondent’s license to practice for two years 
with the last six months stayed upon satisfaction of certain conditions.  The board 
also recommends that respondent serve a Gov.Bar R. V(9) period of probation for 
three years. 
{¶ 3} On review, we agree that respondent committed professional 
misconduct as found by the board and further agree with the board’s 
recommendations.  The parties have not objected to the findings and 
recommendation of the board. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
Facts and Misconduct 
Count I 
{¶ 4} In 2006, Judge Beverly Pfeiffer of the Franklin County Court of 
Common Pleas appointed respondent to represent Lindsey Bruce in an appeal of a 
criminal conviction.  The Bruce case was a matter of great public interest because 
respondent’s client had been convicted of kidnapping and faced a ten-year prison 
sentence.  The Court of Appeals for the Tenth District set the matter for oral 
argument and gave respondent sufficient notice of the date and time. 
{¶ 5} Respondent did not appear at the appointed time, and the 
prosecuting attorney alone presented oral argument.  Respondent did not 
communicate to anyone at the prosecutor’s office that he would not be present 
and did not request a postponement of the hearing date.  The court took the case 
under advisement without any argument on behalf of Bruce.  Respondent 
appeared in the courtroom during the argument of another scheduled case and 
claimed that he was unable to drive because of a recent car accident and that his 
driver had been late.  Respondent could not explain why he had not made any 
attempt to contact anyone at the court to say that he would be late. 
{¶ 6} Respondent filed a motion for rehearing on behalf of Bruce.  The 
appeals court denied the motion and affirmed Bruce’s conviction.  Respondent 
then failed to file an appeal to the Supreme Court of Ohio on behalf of his client. 
{¶ 7} The parties stipulated that there is clear and convincing evidence 
that respondent’s acts and failure to act violated DR 1-102(A)(5) (engaging in 
conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice), 1-102(A)(6) (engaging in 
conduct adversely reflecting on the lawyer’s fitness to practice law), 6-101(A)(1) 
(failure to associate with counsel competent to handle the legal matter that 
respondent is not competent to handle), and 6-101(A)(3) (neglecting an entrusted 
legal matter). The panel additionally found violations of DR 7-107(A)(1) (failing 
January Term, 2008 
3 
to seek the lawful objectives of the client) and 7-101(A)(3) (damaging the client 
during the professional relationship). 
Count II 
{¶ 8} Jamison Rucker paid respondent $1,000 to represent him on a 
charge of driving with a suspended license.  Respondent had represented Rucker 
in the original juvenile traffic matters that resulted in the suspension.  Although 
the court had sent notice of the hearing to respondent, respondent did not see the 
notice and subsequently did not inform his client or his client’s mother of the 
hearing.  The court issued a warrant for Rucker’s arrest when he did not appear 
for the hearing. 
{¶ 9} Rucker’s mother eventually obtained respondent’s home number 
and called him there.  Although respondent said he would move to have the 
warrant set aside, the warrant was withdrawn only when Rucker’s mother 
persuaded the judge to withdraw it.  Respondent has not returned any portion of 
the retainer he received to represent Rucker. 
{¶ 10} Respondent stipulated that there is clear and convincing evidence 
that his acts and failure to act violated DR 1-102(A)(5), 1-102(A)(6), 6-101(A)(1), 
6-101(A)(3), 7-101(A)(1), 7-101(A)(3), and 9-102(B)(4) (failing to return client 
funds).  In addition, the panel found a violation of DR 1-102(A)(4) (engaging in 
conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation). 
Count III 
{¶ 11} Michael Grace retained respondent to restore his driving privileges 
after a probation violation.  Grace paid respondent $400 of the quoted $750 
attorney fees.  Respondent addressed a probation issue but did not pursue 
restoration of Grace’s driving privileges. 
{¶ 12} Grace received a summons and a felony indictment by mail and 
tried unsuccessfully to contact respondent.  Believing that respondent had also 
received a copy of the summons, Grace appeared for the arraignment expecting to 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
see his attorney.  Respondent did not appear at the court, and Grace left, afraid to 
be unrepresented there.  The court issued a warrant for Grace’s arrest.  
Respondent called Grace that evening to inquire about the arraignment and told 
Grace that he did not attend because he “had something else to do.” 
{¶ 13} Respondent demanded a new retainer on the felony case of $1,200 
but missed several appointments with Grace to pick up payment of the new 
retainer.  He eventually went to Grace’s house to accept $500 in cash but 
provided no receipt.  Respondent then failed to take care of the warrant as 
promised. 
{¶ 14} At their next meeting, respondent demanded further payment from 
Grace.  Grace’s mother instructed respondent that they would not pay him any 
further fees because he had not delivered what he had promised.  Respondent 
became belligerent, directing various obscenities at Grace’s mother.  On 
September 6, 2006, Grace terminated respondent’s representation.  Respondent 
has failed to return any of the $900 in attorney fees paid by Grace. 
{¶ 15} Respondent stipulated that his acts and failure to act violated DR 
1-102(A)(5), 1-102(A)(6), 6-101(A)(3), 7-101(A)(1), and 9-102(B)(4).  In 
addition, the panel found a violation of DR 1-102(A)(4). 
Count IV 
{¶ 16} Amanda Thompson paid respondent $10,000 to represent her in a 
case involving felony criminal charges.  The court initially scheduled her case for 
a May 2006 trial but continued the date to July 17, 2006. 
{¶ 17} Thompson’s mother expressed concern about respondent’s 
representation after hearing about respondent’s failure to appear in the Bruce 
matter (Count I).  Between May and July, Thompson and her family were able to 
communicate with respondent twice in the first week and never thereafter.  On 
July 13, 2006, Amanda wrote a letter to the trial judge detailing the difficulties 
she had been having communicating with her attorney and requested a 
January Term, 2008 
5 
continuance.  Thompson’s family discussed the case with the prosecutor and 
discovered that respondent had failed to make Thompson aware of a plea offer. 
{¶ 18} On Thompson’s trial date, respondent arrived late and asked for 
another continuance, claiming lack of preparation because he had only recently 
received some of the discovery.  Thompson then discharged the respondent and 
asked for additional time to find new counsel.  Respondent told the judge that he 
would refund a portion of his retainer.  He has not done so.  Respondent did not 
earn a substantial part of the fee and failed to obtain a beneficial result for his 
client by means that were available. 
{¶ 19} Respondent stipulated and the panel found that his acts and failure 
to act violated DR 1-102(A)(5), 1-102(A)(6), 6-101(A)(1), 6-101(A)(2) (handling 
a legal matter without preparation adequate in the circumstances), 6-101(A)(3), 7-
101(A)(1), and 9-102(B)(4). 
Count V 
{¶ 20} At the panel hearing, relator agreed to dismiss Count V. 
Count VI 
{¶ 21} Respondent acknowledged that he has been addicted to and has 
used illegal and controlled substances and that these addictions have impaired his 
ability to practice law.  Respondent became addicted to Percocet and Vicodin in 
2005.  Respondent became addicted to Suboxone after being prescribed the drug 
for relief for withdrawal symptoms and began to obtain it illegally as his drug of 
choice.  Respondent also used crack cocaine.  Respondent continued to represent 
clients and accept court appointments in serious criminal cases throughout his 
period of illegal drug use.  In the summer of 2006, respondent failed to call 
clients, take care of their cases, send notices of hearings, and appear at scheduled 
hearings.  Respondent admits that he neglected his law practice as a direct and 
proximate result of both his drug addiction and underlying psychological 
disorders. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
{¶ 22} Respondent recently entered an intensive outpatient regimen of 
substance-abuse treatment at the Ohio State University’s Talbot Hall and signed a 
contract with the Ohio Lawyers Assistance Program (“OLAP”).  Respondent also 
received inpatient treatment for 30 days at Glenbeigh Hospital. 
{¶ 23} Relator began sending respondent notices and requests for 
responses concerning these grievances in May 2006.  Respondent received the 
notices but intentionally did not respond to them.  Respondent made no 
significant response to the grievances against him until subpoenaed by relator. 
{¶ 24} Respondent stipulated that his acts and failure to act violated DR 
1-102(A)(6) and Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) (requiring a lawyer to cooperate in an 
investigation).  The board adopted the panel’s findings on all counts. 
Aggravating and Mitigating Factors 
{¶ 25} The board also adopted the aggravating and mitigating factors 
stipulated by the parties.  See Section 10 of the Rules and Regulations Governing 
Procedures on Complaints and Hearing Before the Board of Commissioners on 
Grievances and Discipline (“BCGD Proc.Reg”).  Relator and respondent 
stipulated that a dishonest or selfish motive, a pattern of misconduct, multiple 
offenses, harm to vulnerable victims, and failure to make restitution are 
aggravating factors.  BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(b), (c), (d), (h), and (i).  They 
stipulated that the absence of a disciplinary record, full and free disclosure, a 
cooperative attitude, and a chemical dependency successfully treated are 
mitigating factors.  BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(a), (d), and (g). 
Sanction 
{¶ 26} Relator and respondent jointly recommended a two-year 
suspension, with 12 months stayed based on certain conditions, including 
adherence to the contract with OLAP and a three-year monitored probation upon 
reinstatement.  The panel and board adopted the recommendation, but with only 
the last six months stayed. 
January Term, 2008 
7 
{¶ 27} We adopt all the board’s findings of misconduct.  In addition, 
based on the stipulated facts, we also conclude that respondent violated DR 1-
102(A)(4) with respect to Count IV.  Respondent has filed no objections to the 
board’s findings or its recommendation. 
{¶ 28} In recommending a sanction, the panel and board relied on 
Disciplinary Counsel v. Friedman, 114 Ohio St.3d 1, 2007-Ohio-2477, 866 
N.E.2d 1076.  In Friedman, the respondent had committed eight counts of 
neglecting legal matters and retaining fees for services that he either never 
performed or did not fully perform.  The case involved a pattern of misconduct 
and multiple offenses, and the respondent had not made full restitution.  We 
ordered a two-year suspension with six months stayed based on certain conditions 
in that case.  We found mitigating factors involving the diagnosis and treatment of 
a chemical dependency, full cooperation with disciplinary proceedings, good 
character and reputation, and no prior disciplinary record.  The lawyer in that case 
had completed a treatment program, and the board had accepted evidence that he 
could return to the practice of law if he remained committed to daily efforts to 
remain sober. 
{¶ 29} Like Friedman, respondent here has displayed a pattern of 
misconduct and has engaged in multiple offenses.  To determine the appropriate 
sanction, however, we must also weigh the aggravating and mitigating factors of 
the situation. 
{¶ 30} The mitigation that factored into our disposition in Friedman 
included the lawyer’s cooperation in the disciplinary process.  See BCGD 
Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(c) and (d).  Moreover, the parties had stipulated to the absence 
of a disciplinary record, the respondent’s cooperative attitude, and the chemical 
dependency.  Weighing against these factors here, however, are the stipulated 
aggravating factors involving a dishonest or selfish motive, the pattern of 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
8 
misconduct, the multiple offenses, harm to vulnerable victims, and the failure to 
make restitution to this point. 
{¶ 31} Respondent’s hearing focused on the mitigating factors relating to 
his treatment and fitness to once again practice law.  Respondent presented a 
licensed independent social worker/certified chemical-dependency counselor from 
OLAP to discuss with the panel his recovery efforts.  The counselor testified that 
respondent’s chemical dependency contributed to the misconduct.  The OLAP 
counselor confirmed that respondent had been following all of the recommended 
treatments and was complying with the rehabilitation program.  The counselor 
also discussed the nature of respondent’s attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, 
dysthymia, and anxiety disorder.  She stated that all the conditions are treatable 
and that as long as respondent continues to follow his treatment, he should return 
to an improved version of his old self and be able to return to his occupation. 
{¶ 32} Having considered the duties that respondent violated, the 
aggravating and mitigating factors, and precedent, we adopt the sanction 
recommended by the board.  Accordingly, respondent is hereby suspended from 
the practice of law in Ohio for two years, with the last six months stayed on 
conditions.  During the suspension, respondent shall (1) continue to comply with 
the terms of his OLAP contract, (2) provide a current report from a psychologist 
or psychiatrist certifying that he is fit to resume the practice of law in Ohio, (3) 
pay full restitution of all fees and expenses paid by or on behalf of the clients who 
have filed grievances against him with the Columbus Bar Association or with the 
Client Security Fund, (4) pay the costs of these proceedings, and (5) commit no 
further disciplinary violations.  If respondent violates the terms of the stay, the 
stay shall be lifted, and respondent shall be suspended for the full two years. 
{¶ 33} As pointed out by the OLAP counselor, recovery is dependent 
upon a strict observation of the recovery program.  Therefore, we also adopt the 
board recommendation that if respondent is reinstated, he shall serve a Gov.Bar 
January Term, 2008 
9 
R. V(9) period of probation for three years from the date of reinstatement.  During 
the probation, respondent shall (1) successfully complete his OLAP contract, (2) 
continue to be evaluated by a mental-health professional and follow any 
recommended course of treatment, (3) submit annually to relator a report from a 
psychologist or psychiatrist certifying that he is fit to continue the practice of law 
in Ohio, (4) cooperate with and accept monitoring by a law-practice monitor 
appointed by and reporting to relator, and (5) commit no further disciplinary 
violations. 
{¶ 34} Costs are taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, 
C.J., 
and 
PFEIFER, 
LUNDBERG 
STRATTON, 
O’CONNOR, 
O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, and CUPP, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
Terry K. Sherman, A. Alysha Clous, and Bruce A. Campbell, for relator. 
Jeffery A. Berndt, for respondent.