Title: Disciplinary Counsel v. Hoff

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
Disciplinary Counsel v. Hoff, Slip Opinion No. 2010-Ohio-136.] 
 
 
 
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. 2010-OHIO-136 
DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. HOFF. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as Disciplinary Counsel v. Hoff,  
Slip Opinion No. 2010-Ohio-136.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Multiple disciplinary violations — Failure to 
cooperate in disciplinary investigation — Indefinite suspension. 
(No. 2009-1510 ⎯ Submitted October 20, 2009 ⎯ Decided January 26, 2010.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 09-030. 
__________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, George Latham Hoff, last known address in Akron, 
Ohio, Attorney Registration No. 0030352, was admitted to the practice of law in 
Ohio in 1985.  The Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline 
recommends that we indefinitely suspend respondent’s license to practice, based 
on findings that he accepted a $5,000 fee to help a client resolve a dispute with 
federal tax authorities, did nothing for the client, and failed to return the unearned 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
fee.  We agree that respondent committed this professional misconduct and that 
an indefinite suspension of his license to practice is appropriate. 
{¶ 2} Relator, Disciplinary Counsel, charged respondent in a one-count 
complaint with multiple violations of the Disciplinary Rules of the Code of 
Professional Responsibility and the Rules of Professional Conduct.1  Service of 
the complaint could not be completed at respondent’s business or residence, 
however, because he moved during the investigation of the underlying grievance 
without disclosing any new address.2  The board thus served respondent with 
notice of the complaint pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(11)(B) (when a lawyer conceals 
his or her location, the Supreme Court clerk is the lawyer’s agent for service of 
legal notices). 
{¶ 3} Respondent did not answer the complaint, and relator moved for 
default.  A master commissioner appointed by the board granted the motion, 
making findings of fact, conclusions of law, and a recommendation that 
respondent be suspended indefinitely from practice.  The board adopted the 
master commissioner’s findings of misconduct and recommendation. 
{¶ 4} No objections have been filed. 
Misconduct 
{¶ 5} A client hired respondent in early May 2006 to help her resolve 
some federal income tax deficiencies with the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”).  
Without explaining his hourly rate, respondent obtained a $5,000 advance from 
                                                 
1.  Relator charged respondent with misconduct under applicable rules for acts occurring before 
and after February 1, 2007, the effective date of the Rules of Professional Conduct, which 
supersede the Code of Professional Responsibility.  When both the former and current rules are 
cited for the same act, the allegation constitutes a single ethical violation.  Disciplinary Counsel v. 
Freeman, 119 Ohio St.3d 330, 2008-Ohio-3836, 894 N.E.2d 31, ¶ 1, fn. 1. 
 
2.  Respondent knew of the grievance because relator had hand-delivered a copy and a letter of 
inquiry to him during the investigation.  Respondent promised at that time to respond but never 
did.  He also promised to notify relator of his changed address, and when he did not, relator 
continued to send correspondence and notices to his last known addresses.  All went unanswered.   
January Term, 2010 
3 
 
his client.  That June, the client gave respondent copies of her financial records 
and executed a power of attorney.  Respondent advised that he would forward the 
power of attorney to the IRS and try to negotiate a compromise on her behalf. 
{¶ 6} In the following months, however, the client continued to receive 
tax delinquency notices from the IRS, and that fall, she learned that the IRS had 
no record of respondent’s power of attorney.  The client and her husband 
attempted to contact respondent by phone and in person, even going to a nightclub 
where respondent had once performed.  The couple never found respondent and in 
early 2007 gave up their search. 
{¶ 7} Respondent later provided his case file for this client to relator; 
however, he never refunded any of his fees as unearned.  His client resolved some 
of her disputes with the IRS but has been unable to afford another attorney. 
{¶ 8} Respondent accepted this client’s $5,000, failed to provide 
promised professional services, and then kept her money.  He then failed in his 
duty to respond appropriately during the investigation of this wrongdoing.  The 
board found that he thereby violated DR l-102(A)(4) and Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(c) 
(both prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, 
deceit, or misrepresentation), DR 1-102(A)(6) and Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(h) (both 
prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct adversely reflecting on the 
lawyer’s fitness to practice law), DR 6-l0l(A)(3) (prohibiting a lawyer from 
neglecting an entrusted legal matter) and Prof.Cond.R. 1.3 (requiring a lawyer to 
act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client), DR 7-
l01(A)(1) and Prof.Cond.R. 1.2(a) (both prohibiting a lawyer from intentionally 
failing to seek the lawful objectives of his clients), DR 7-101(A)(2) (prohibiting a 
lawyer from intentionally failing to carry out a contract of professional 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
employment), and Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) (requiring a lawyer to cooperate in a 
disciplinary investigation).  We accept these findings of misconduct. 3 
Sanction 
{¶ 9} In recommending a sanction for this misconduct, the board 
considered sanctions imposed in similar cases and weighed mitigating and 
aggravating factors to determine whether more lenient or exacting measures were 
warranted in respondent’s case. 
{¶ 10} The board concluded that an indefinite suspension is appropriate, 
applying the rule that “[a] lawyer’s neglect of legal matters and failure to 
cooperate in the ensuing disciplinary investigation generally warrant[] an 
indefinite suspension from the practice of law in Ohio.”  See Disciplinary 
Counsel v. Mathewson, 113 Ohio St.3d 365, 2007-Ohio-2076, 865 N.E.2d 891, ¶ 
19.  The board found only one mitigating factor⎯respondent’s lack of a prior 
disciplinary record, see BCGD Proc.Reg.10(B)(2)(a)⎯which was clearly 
outweighed by aggravating factors.  Aggravating factors included respondent’s 
failure to cooperate in the disciplinary process, his refusal to acknowledge the 
wrongful nature of his conduct, the serious harm he caused his vulnerable victim, 
and his failure to make restitution.  See BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(e), (g), (h), 
and (i). 
{¶ 11} Having found the cited misconduct and no objections having been 
filed, we accept the board’s recommendation as to the sanction.  Respondent is 
suspended from the practice of law in Ohio indefinitely.  Pursuant to Gov.Bar R. 
V(10)(B)(1), he may not petition for reinstatement for two years from the date of 
our order. 
{¶ 12} Costs are taxed to respondent. 
                                                 
3.  The master commissioner and board both also found a violation of Prof.Cond.R. 1.4(a)(3) 
(requiring a lawyer to keep the client reasonably informed about the status of pertinent legal 
affairs).  Because relator did not charge this misconduct in the complaint, we do not accept this 
finding.   
January Term, 2010 
5 
 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, 
C.J., 
and 
PFEIFER, 
LUNDBERG 
STRATTON, 
O’CONNOR, 
O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, and CUPP, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
 
Jonathan E. Coughlan, Disciplinary Counsel, and Philip A. King, for 
relator. 
______________________