Case Title: Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Heisler

Citation: 2008-Ohio-5221

Docket Number: 20080816

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2008-10-14T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Heisler, 119 Ohio St.3d 573, 2008-Ohio-5221.] 
 
 
CINCINNATI BAR ASSOCIATION v. HEISLER. 
[Cite as Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Heisler, 119 Ohio St.3d 573, 2008-Ohio-5221.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — One-year suspension with credit for interim-
suspension period. 
(No. 2008-0816 – Submitted June 24, 2008 – Decided October 14, 2008.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 07-064. 
__________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Dwight Daniel Heisler of Bowling Green, Ohio, 
Attorney Registration No. 0029005, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 
1981.  On April 16, 2007, we suspended respondent’s license to practice on an 
interim basis upon notice that he was in default of a child-support order.  See In re 
Heisler, 113 Ohio St.3d 1455, 2007-Ohio-1751, 864 N.E.2d 643 (“Heisler I”).  
Then, on May 30, 2007, we ordered a six-month suspension of respondent’s 
license, all stayed on conditions, for professional misconduct he committed in 
affiliating with nonlawyers to sell legal services.  Cincinnati Bar Assn v. Heisler, 
113 Ohio St.3d 447, 2007-Ohio-2338, 866 N.E.2d 490 (“Heisler 1I”). 
{¶ 2} On December 21, 2007, we found respondent in contempt for 
failing to pay the $1,840.48 in costs ordered in Heisler I, and we suspended him 
from practice until he purged himself of the contempt.  See Cincinnati Bar Assn. 
v. Heisler, 116 Ohio St.3d 1448, 2007-Ohio-6842, 878 N.E.2d 27.  Then, on 
January 8, 2008, we lifted the interim child-support suspension upon notice that 
respondent had cured the default.  See In re Heisler, 116 Ohio St.3d 1465, 2008-
Ohio-18, 878 N.E.2d 1056.  Respondent’s license remains under suspension, 
however, for his continuing contempt of court. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
{¶ 3} For his default on child support, the Board of Commissioners on 
Grievances and Discipline recommends that we suspend respondent’s license for 
a period of one year but give credit for the time he has already served under the 
interim and contempt suspensions.  We agree that respondent breached ethical 
duties as found by the board and accept the recommendation to suspend with 
credit. 
{¶ 4} Relator, Cincinnati Bar Association, charged respondent with 
violations of DR 1-102(A)(6) and newly promulgated Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(h) for 
failing to comply with his child-support order.  Both rules prohibit conduct that 
adversely reflects on the lawyer’s fitness to practice law.  A panel of the board 
heard the case, found the cited misconduct, and recommended the one-year 
suspension with credit for respondent’s prior suspensions.  The board adopted the 
panel’s findings of misconduct and recommendation. 
{¶ 5} Neither party has objected to the board’s report. 
Misconduct 
{¶ 6} In January 2006, respondent ended the business relationship that 
later resulted in the suspension and stay ordered in Heisler II.  His difficulty in 
finding other sustained employment caused him to fall behind in his child support, 
and by September 18, 2006, he owed approximately $3,000 in arrearages.  When 
notified of respondent’s default in March 2007, we ordered his interim suspension 
in Heisler I. 
{¶ 7} As of the panel hearing in March 2008, respondent was working 
nights as a security guard.  He had cured the child-support default by obtaining a 
significant adjustment in his monthly support payments and by entering into a 
payment plan with direct withholding.  Respondent has not, however, been able to 
pay the costs ordered in Heisler II to purge his contempt. 
{¶ 8} Respondent testified that he did not initially seek an adjustment of 
his child support, hoping that he could bring himself into compliance with the 
January Term, 2008 
3 
existing payment schedule without disadvantaging his son.  His suspension from 
practice and the child-support-enforcement agency’s suspension of his driver’s 
license, however, complicated his job search.  Respondent’s need to care for his 
aged and ailing parents further restricted his employment options. 
{¶ 9} In addition, respondent explained how he had mistakenly sent his 
response to the wrong office when ordered to show cause why he should not be 
held in contempt.  Respondent had also hoped at some point to work out an 
arrangement allowing him to pay the ordered costs and be reinstated to practice.  
He conceded at the panel hearing, however, that he had done nothing to 
accomplish this goal. 
{¶ 10} Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(h) superseded DR 1-102(A)(6) on February 1, 
2007.  Failure to comply with orders for child support prior to that date violated 
the Disciplinary Rule.  Failure to do so after February 1, 2007, violated 
Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(h). 
Sanction 
{¶ 11} Relator recommended a one-year suspension with credit for the 
interim and child-support suspensions, relying mainly on Disciplinary Counsel v. 
Redfield, 116 Ohio St.3d 262, 2007-Ohio-6039, 878 N.E.2d 10.  We find that case 
instructive.  When Redfield came before the board, the lawyer’s license was under 
interim suspension for failing to pay child support and also for failing to register 
as an attorney.  The board found that the lawyer had committed further 
misconduct by abandoning a client’s suit in court and then failing to respond to 
investigative inquiries about her grievance.  Redfield, 116 Ohio St.3d 262, 2007-
Ohio-6039, 878 N.E.2d 10, ¶ 13-18. 
{¶ 12} On the board’s recommendation and without objection from the 
parties, we ordered the lawyer in Redfield suspended for two years, but we 
credited him for the more than two years his license had been suspended already, 
conditioning his reinstatement on payment of his child-support arrearages.  We 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
afforded suspension credit because the lawyer had already paid a significant price 
for his misconduct and was destitute.  We saw no value in further impairing his 
ability to support his children by compounding suspensions when he would not 
likely be able to qualify for reinstatement soon anyway.  Redfield, 116 Ohio St.3d 
262, 2007-Ohio-6039, 878 N.E.2d 10, ¶ 23-32. 
{¶ 13} Respondent has been barred from practice since April 16, 2007, an 
equally significant price to pay for his default, even considering his prior 
misconduct.  Moreover, he has responsibly cured the default in his child support 
obligations.  We remain concerned that respondent has yet to pay the costs of the 
disciplinary proceeding in Heisler I; however, the suspension that continues until 
he purges his contempt in that case is satisfactory. 
{¶ 14} Having found respondent in violation of DR 1-102(A)(6) and 
Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(h), we suspend respondent from the practice of law in Ohio for 
one year, but give credit from the time he has been suspended under the interim 
suspension ordered on April 16, 2007.  Respondent’s reinstatement is conditioned 
upon, in addition to all the requirements of Gov.Bar R. V(10)(A), his proof of 
compliance with our order in Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Heisler, 116 Ohio St.3d 
1448, 2007-Ohio-6842, 878 N.E.2d 27.  Costs are taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, 
C.J., 
and 
PFEIFER, 
LUNDBERG 
STRATTON, 
O’CONNOR, 
O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, and CUPP, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
Robert J. Gehring and Richard L. Creighton, for relator. 
Dwight Daniel Heisler, pro se. 
______________________