Case Title: Disciplinary Counsel v. Eisler

Citation: 2015-Ohio-967

Docket Number: 

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2015-03-18T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
Disciplinary Counsel v. Eisler, Slip Opinion No. 2015-Ohio-967.] 
 
 
NOTICE 
This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in 
an advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports.  Readers are requested 
to promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 
65 South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographical or 
other formal errors in the opinion, in order that corrections may be 
made before the opinion is published. 
 
SLIP OPINION NO. 2015-OHIO-967 
DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. EISLER. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as Disciplinary Counsel v. Eisler,  
Slip Opinion No. 2015-Ohio-967.] 
Attorneys—Misconduct—Practice of law while license under suspension—History 
of attorney-registration suspensions—Failure to appear at disciplinary 
hearing—Two-year suspension with second year stayed on conditions. 
(No. 2014-0970—Submitted August 20, 2014—Decided March 18, 2015.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 2013-048. 
_______________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, David Charles Eisler of Seattle, Washington, Attorney 
Registration No. 0020362, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1980. 
{¶ 2} On September 11, 2013, a probable-cause panel of the Board of 
Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline1 certified to the board a single-
                                                 
1 Effective January 1, 2015, the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline has been 
renamed the Board of Professional Conduct.  See Gov.Bar R. V(1)(A), 140 Ohio St.3d CII. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
count complaint filed against Eisler by relator, disciplinary counsel.  In that 
complaint, relator alleged that Eisler had violated the Rules of Professional 
Conduct by appearing and presenting oral argument on behalf of an appellant 
before the Ninth District Court of Appeals while his license was under suspension 
for failure to comply with the continuing-legal-education (“CLE”) requirements 
of Gov.Bar R. X.  Eisler admitted in his answer that he engaged in the charged 
misconduct. 
{¶ 3} The parties entered into stipulations of fact, misconduct, and 
aggravating and mitigating factors and agreed that Eisler should be suspended 
from the practice of law for six months for appearing and presenting oral 
argument before the Ninth District Court of Appeals while knowing that his 
license was under suspension. 
{¶ 4} Having considered Eisler’s conduct, the relevant aggravating and 
mitigating factors, and the sanctions we have imposed for comparable 
misconduct, the panel recommended that Eisler be suspended for two years with 
the second year stayed on conditions.  The board adopted the panel’s report in its 
entirety.  No one has objected to the board’s report. 
{¶ 5} We adopt the board’s findings of fact and misconduct and agree 
that a two- year suspension with the second year stayed on conditions is the 
appropriate sanction for Eisler’s misconduct. 
Procedural History and Misconduct 
{¶ 6} Eisler’s license to practice law in Ohio was suspended on 
November 13, 2012, for his failure to timely comply with the CLE requirements 
of Gov.Bar R. X.  See In re Continuing Legal Edn. Suspension of Eisler, 133 Ohio 
St.3d 1472, 2012-Ohio-5238, 978 N.E.2d 198.  That suspension remains in effect, 
and on September 1, 2013, Eisler registered his license as inactive.2     
                                                 
2 From 1993 through 2010, Eisler was monetarily sanctioned at least four times for his failure to 
timely comply with the CLE requirements of Gov.Bar R. X.  See, e.g., In re Continuing Legal 
January Term, 2015 
3 
 
{¶ 7} The board found that Eisler received notice of his CLE suspension 
on November 20, 2012—the Tuesday before the Thanksgiving holiday.  He was 
scheduled to appear and present oral argument on behalf of a client in the Ninth 
District Court of Appeals on Tuesday, November 27, 2012.  The court was closed 
on November 22 and 23, 2012, for the Thanksgiving holiday.  Concluding that 
any pleading he would file with the court to address his suspension would not be 
processed until after the oral argument had occurred, Eisler decided to travel to 
Ohio to appear before the court and address it in person. 
{¶ 8} Eisler appeared before the Ninth District Court of Appeals on 
November 27, 2012, and presented argument on behalf of the appellant, making 
no mention of the fact that his license to practice law in Ohio was under 
suspension.  In an affidavit attached to the parties’ revised stipulations, Eisler 
averred that (1) his client, who was and continued to be his employer, was aware 
that he was delinquent in completing his CLE requirements, but was not aware 
that his license had been suspended; (2) he had the opportunity to address the 
court and disclose the fact that he had been suspended, but “chose to rely on 
reflex and commence to present the oral argument”; (3) he expected opposing 
counsel to disclose to the court that he had argued the case while his license was 
suspended; and (4) opposing counsel made such a disclosure before presenting 
her oral argument.  Upon learning of his suspension, the appellate court denied 
him the opportunity to present a rebuttal argument on behalf of his client.  The 
administrative judge for the court reported his misconduct to disciplinary counsel. 
                                                                                                                                     
Edn. Sanction of Eisler, 85 Ohio St.3d 1418, 707 N.E.2d 509 (1999); In re Continuing Legal Edn. 
Sanction of Eisler, 98 Ohio St.3d 1426, 2003-Ohio-318, 782 N.E.2d 583; In re Continuing Legal 
Edn. Sanction of Eisler, 120 Ohio St.3d 1431, 2008-Ohio-6326, 897 N.E.2d 662; and In re 
Continuing Legal Edn. Sanction of Eisler, 127 Ohio St.3d 1467, 2010-Ohio-6302, 938 N.E.2d 
368.   
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
{¶ 9} After Eisler answered relator’s complaint and admitted the charged 
misconduct, the parties submitted a consent-to-discipline agreement and then an 
amended consent-to-discipline agreement that the panel rejected. 
{¶ 10} Following a prehearing telephone conference, the parties submitted 
agreed stipulations of fact and law and moved to waive the panel hearing.  The 
panel chair denied the motion, noting that the parties’ stipulation that Eisler did 
not have a prior disciplinary record was inconsistent with this court’s records, 
which reflect that from 2005 through 2009, Eisler’s license was suspended and 
subsequently reinstated on three separate occasions for his failure to timely 
register as an attorney.  See In re Attorney Registration Suspension of Eisler, 107 
Ohio St.3d 1431, 2005-Ohio-6408, 838 N.E.2d 671, and In re Reinstatement of 
Eisler, 109 Ohio St.3d 1429, 2006-Ohio-2065, 846 N.E.2d 858; In re Attorney 
Registration Suspension of Eisler, 116 Ohio St.3d 1420, 2007-Ohio-6463, 877 
N.E.2d 305, and  In re Reinstatement of Eisler, 116 Ohio St.3d 1498, 2008-Ohio-
290, 880 N.E.2d 97; In re Attorney Registration Suspension of Eisler, 123 Ohio 
St.3d 1475, 2009-Ohio-5786, 915 N.E.2d 1256, and In re Reinstatement of Eisler, 
126 Ohio St.3d 1603, 2010-Ohio-4979, 935 N.E.2d 48.  Concluding that 
additional evidence was necessary for the panel to determine the appropriate 
weight to assign to Eisler’s prior disciplinary record as an aggravating factor, the 
panel chair set a hearing for March 10, 2014. 
{¶ 11} The parties jointly moved for reconsideration of the motion to 
waive the hearing and submitted revised stipulations of fact and law in which they 
modified the aggravating factors to include Eisler’s prior registration suspensions.  
The panel chair denied the motion for reconsideration, citing the need for the 
panel to “examine Respondent under oath to assist with the panel’s obligation to 
determine the appropriate sanction for Respondent’s admitted misconduct.”  
While the panel chair granted Eisler’s motion to continue the March 10, 2014 
hearing to permit him to retain counsel, the chair denied his second motion for a 
January Term, 2015 
5 
 
continuance—submitted just one day before the April 3, 2014 hearing—which 
alleged that he did not have money to retain counsel or pay for his travel to Ohio 
for the hearing.  However, Eisler did not appear for the hearing. 
{¶ 12} Based on these undisputed facts, the board found that relator had 
proven by clear and convincing evidence that Eisler violated Prof.Cond.R. 5.5(a) 
(prohibiting a lawyer from practicing law in a jurisdiction in violation of the 
regulation of the legal profession in that jurisdiction) and 8.4(d) (prohibiting a 
lawyer from engaging in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of 
justice) but recommended that we dismiss an alleged violation of Prof.Cond.R. 
8.4(h) (prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct that adversely reflects on 
the lawyer’s fitness to practice law) that relator sought to withdraw.  We adopt the 
board’s findings of fact, find that Eisler’s conduct violated Prof.Cond.R. 5.5(a) 
and 8.4(d), and dismiss the alleged violation of Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(h). 
Sanction 
{¶ 13} When imposing sanctions for attorney misconduct, we consider 
relevant factors, including the ethical duties the lawyer violated and the sanctions 
imposed in similar cases.  Stark Cty. Bar Assn. v. Buttacavoli, 96 Ohio St.3d 424, 
2002-Ohio-4743, 775 N.E.2d 818, ¶ 16.  In making a final determination, we also 
weigh evidence of the aggravating and mitigating factors listed in BCGD 
Proc.Reg. 10(B).3  Disciplinary Counsel v. Broeren, 115 Ohio St.3d 473, 2007-
Ohio-5251, 875 N.E.2d 935, ¶ 21. 
{¶ 14} The board noted that Eisler engaged in a single instance of 
misconduct and that he acknowledged the wrongful nature of his misconduct.  
However, the board found that Eisler acted with a dishonest and selfish motive—
an aggravating factor—because he made a conscious decision to appear before the 
court of appeals and argue on behalf of his client while remaining silent as to his 
                                                 
3 Effective January 1, 2015, the aggravating and mitigating factors previously set forth in BCGD 
Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1) and (2) are codified in Gov.Bar R. V(13), 140 Ohio St.3d CXXIV. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
 
suspension.  See BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(b).  The board also found that while 
Eisler admitted his misconduct and reached an agreement with relator regarding 
the appropriate sanction, he sought two last-minute continuances—the first 
claiming that he wished to seek counsel and the second claiming that he could 
neither afford to retain counsel nor travel to Ohio for the hearing—and failed to 
appear before the panel.  Therefore, contrary to the parties’ stipulations, the board 
found that Eisler failed to cooperate in the disciplinary process.  See BCGD 
Proc.Reg.  10(B)(1)(e).  The board also found that his three attorney-registration 
suspensions constitute prior disciplinary offenses and are an additional 
aggravating factor pursuant to BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(a). 
{¶ 15} We have stated that “[t]he normal penalty for continuing to 
practice law while under suspension is disbarment.” Disciplinary Counsel v. 
Koury, 77 Ohio St.3d 433, 436, 674 N.E.2d 1371 (1997).  However, citing a 
number of cases in which we have imposed lesser sanctions for attorneys who 
have engaged in the practice of law while their licenses have been suspended, the 
parties stipulated that a six-month suspension is the appropriate sanction for 
Eisler’s misconduct.  See, e.g., Disciplinary Counsel v. Bancsi, 79 Ohio St.3d 
392, 394, 683 N.E.2d 1072 (1997) (imposing a one-year suspension with six 
months stayed on an attorney who practiced law while his license was suspended, 
where mitigating factors included the attorney’s prompt effort to cure the CLE 
deficiency, immediate payment of the outstanding fine, and the short duration of 
the attorney’s suspension). 
{¶ 16} Because the record does not contain evidence of significant 
mitigating factors—such as Eisler’s character and reputation apart from the 
charged misconduct or evidence of a chemical dependency or mental disability 
that may have contributed to his misconduct—the board recommends that we 
suspend Eisler for two years with the second year stayed on the conditions that he 
January Term, 2015 
7 
 
satisfy all of the requirements to be reinstated to active status, that he commit no 
further misconduct, and that he pay the costs of this matter. 
{¶ 17} We have routinely imposed indefinite suspensions on attorneys 
who have continued to practice law while under suspension for CLE and 
registration violations and who have then failed to respond to the ensuing 
disciplinary investigation.  See Disciplinary Counsel v. Freeman, 126 Ohio St.3d 
389, 2010-Ohio-3824, 934 N.E.2d 328, ¶ 14, citing, e.g., Disciplinary Counsel v. 
Higgins, 117 Ohio St.3d 473, 2008-Ohio-1509, 884 N.E.2d 1070; Toledo Bar 
Assn. v. Crandall, 98 Ohio St.3d 444, 2003-Ohio-1637, 786 N.E.2d 872; Akron 
Bar Assn. v. Barron, 85 Ohio St.3d 167, 707 N.E.2d 850 (1999).  In some of those 
cases, however, the relator obtained a default judgment after the respondent failed 
to respond to the disciplinary investigation and failed to appear in the board 
proceedings.  In contrast, Eisler responded to relator’s initial letter of inquiry and 
admitted his ethical lapse, promptly answered the formal complaint and admitted 
all of the allegations contained therein, worked with relator to submit two 
proposed (but rejected) consent agreements, and submitted stipulations of fact, 
misconduct, and aggravation and mitigation as well as a proposed sanction.  
Although Eisler failed to appear for the disciplinary hearing despite the panel’s 
expressed desire to hear his testimony, his conduct is not as egregious as that of 
the attorneys who completely failed to participate in the disciplinary process and 
who received indefinite suspensions for their misconduct.  Therefore, we find that 
the board’s recommendation of a two-year suspension with the second year stayed 
on conditions strikes the proper balance of protecting the public while deterring 
future misconduct. 
{¶ 18} Accordingly, David Charles Eisler is suspended from the practice 
of law in Ohio for two years, with the second year stayed on the conditions that he 
engage in no further misconduct and satisfy all requirements to be reinstated to 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
8 
 
active status.  If Eisler fails to comply with these conditions, the stay will be 
revoked and he will serve the full two-year suspension.  Costs are taxed to Eisler. 
Judgment accordingly. 
PFEIFER, O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, KENNEDY, FRENCH, and O’NEILL, JJ., 
concur. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., dissents and would indefinitely suspend the respondent 
from the practice of law in Ohio. 
_________________________ 
Scott J. Drexel, Disciplinary Counsel, and Stacy Solochek Beckman, 
Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. 
David Charles Eisler, pro se. 
_________________________