Title: Disciplinary Counsel v. Seabrook

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. Seabrook, Slip Opinion No. 2012-Ohio-3933.] 
 
 
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. 2012-OHIO-3933 
DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. SEABROOK. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets,  
it may be cited as Disciplinary Counsel v. Seabrook,  
Slip Opinion No. 2012-Ohio-3933.] 
Attorneys—Misconduct—Practicing 
law 
in 
violation 
of 
jurisdictional 
regulations—Engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of 
justice—Failing to respond to request for information from a disciplinary 
authority during an investigation—Two-year suspension, with one year 
stayed on conditions. 
(No. 2011-2049—Submitted January 18, 2012—Decided September 6, 2012.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 10-089. 
__________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Eric Maurice Seabrook of Columbus, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0069118, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1998.  
Seabrook’s license to practice law was suspended from December 2, 2005, 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
through March 1, 2006, for his failure to comply with the attorney-registration 
requirements of Gov.Bar R. VI.  In re Attorney Registration Suspension of 
Seabrook, 107 Ohio St.3d 1431, 2005-Ohio-6408, 838 N.E.2d 671; In re 
Seabrook, 108 Ohio St.3d 1491, 2006-Ohio-1050, 843 N.E.2d 796.  We imposed 
a second registration suspension on November 3, 2009, and Seabrook’s license 
was reinstated on March 5, 2010.  In re Attorney Registration Suspension of 
Seabrook, 123 Ohio St.3d 1475, 2009-Ohio-5786, 915 N.E.2d 1256; In re 
Seabrook, 126 Ohio St.3d 1603, 2010-Ohio-4979, 935 N.E.2d 48.1 
{¶ 2} On October 11, 2010, relator, disciplinary counsel, filed a 
complaint with the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline.  The 
complaint alleged that Seabrook continued to practice law by representing two 
clients during his second attorney-registration suspension and failed to cooperate 
in the ensuing disciplinary investigations in violation of 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), 5.5(b)(2) (prohibiting a 
lawyer who is not admitted to practice in this jurisdiction from holding himself 
out as admitted), 8.1(b) (prohibiting a lawyer from knowingly failing to respond 
to a demand for information by a disciplinary authority during an investigation), 
and 8.4(d) (prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct that is prejudicial to 
the administration of justice), 8.4(h) (prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in 
conduct that adversely reflects on the lawyer's fitness to practice law), and 
Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) (requiring a lawyer to cooperate with a disciplinary 
investigation). 
                                                 
1 We have also assessed monetary sanctions for Seabrook’s failure to comply with the 
continuing legal education (“CLE”) requirements of Gov.Bar R. X.  In re Seabrook, 88 Ohio St.3d 
1401, 722 N.E.2d 1029 (2000); In re Seabrook, 109 Ohio St.3d 1414, 2006-Ohio-1911, 846 
N.E.2d 52; In re Seabrook, 124 Ohio St.3d 1402, 2009-Ohio-6833, 918 N.E.2d 1010.  Pursuant to 
Gov.Bar R. X(5)(C), however, we do not consider an attorney’s failure to comply with CLE 
requirements in the imposition of a sanction under Gov.Bar R. V(8). 
 
January Term, 2012 
3 
 
{¶ 3} The panel and board adopted the parties’ stipulations of fact and 
misconduct, and recommend that Seabrook be suspended from the practice of law 
for two years, all stayed on conditions.  We adopt the board’s findings of fact and 
misconduct but find that a two-year suspension with the second year stayed on the 
conditions recommended by the board is the appropriate sanction for Seabrook’s 
misconduct. 
Misconduct 
Count One—David Tye 
{¶ 4} Unaware that Seabrook’s license to practice law was under 
suspension, David Tye paid Seabrook $400 to represent him in an administrative 
child-support matter.  On February 25, 2010, Seabrook appeared before a 
magistrate in the Franklin County Domestic Relations and Juvenile court on Tye’s 
behalf.  While preparing his decision, the magistrate reviewed this court’s website 
and discovered Seabrook’s suspension.  The magistrate declared a mistrial and set 
the matter for a new hearing.  Thereafter, Tye represented himself in the 
proceedings. 
{¶ 5} On March 3, 2010, the magistrate submitted a grievance to relator.  
Two days later, Seabrook’s license was reinstated.  Relator sent a letter of inquiry 
to Seabrook at the residence address listed in his attorney-registration records, but 
the envelope was returned unclaimed and relator received no response from 
Seabrook. 
Count Two—Herb James 
{¶ 6} On February 17, 2010, Seabrook represented Herb James in an 
eviction proceeding in the Franklin County Municipal Court.  Seabrook and 
James ultimately dismissed the action that day because the proper corporate 
plaintiff had not been named in the complaint.  Danny Bank, Clinical 
Administrator and Staff Counsel for the Ohio Legal Clinic, and Brittney Hensley, 
a legal intern, agreed to prepare a lease addendum on behalf of their client, the 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
tenant, to avoid any future landlord-tenant disputes.  When Hensley accessed this 
court’s website on March 5, 2010, to obtain Seabrook’s contact information, she 
discovered that Seabrook’s license had been suspended from November 3, 2009, 
until March 5, 2010.  Bank and Hensley sent Seabrook a letter giving him until 
March 31, 2010, to self-report his violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct, 
but they did not hear from him. 
{¶ 7} On April 14, 2010, Hensley filed a grievance against Seabrook 
with relator.  Relator sent Seabrook a letter of inquiry at the residence address 
listed in his attorney-registration records, but the envelope was returned 
unclaimed, and relator received no response from Seabrook.  The parties have 
stipulated and the board has found that Seabrook’s conduct with respect to counts 
one and two violated Prof.Cond.R. 5.5(a), 5.5(b)(2), 8.1(b), 8.4(d), and 8.4(h), and 
Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G).  We adopt the board’s findings of fact and misconduct. 
Sanction 
{¶ 8} In recommending a sanction, the panel and board considered 
Seabrook’s conduct, the aggravating and mitigating factors listed in BCGD 
Proc.Reg. 10, and the sanctions we have imposed for similar misconduct.  See 
Stark Cty. Bar Assn. v. Buttacavoli, 96 Ohio St.3d 424, 2002-Ohio-4743, 775 
N.E.2d 818, ¶ 16.   
{¶ 9} The only aggravating factors found by the board were Seabrook’s 
prior registration suspensions.  See BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(a).  With respect to 
mitigation, the board noted that there was no evidence that any of Seabrook’s 
clients were harmed by his misconduct, or that he had acted with a dishonest or 
selfish motive.  See BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(b).  Indeed, Seabrook repeatedly 
testified that his misconduct was the result of his own lack of diligence.  At his 
deposition, he indicated that he had been diagnosed with depression and attention 
deficit disorder and had received counseling and prescription medication for these 
disorders from time to time.  But he did not offer any evidence to demonstrate that 
January Term, 2012 
5 
 
his diagnoses should be afforded any mitigating effect pursuant to BCGD 
Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(g).  Nor did he offer any evidence of his character or 
reputation in the community. 
{¶ 10} Relator recommends a one-year suspension with six months stayed 
on the condition that Seabrook attend continuing legal education (“CLE”) focused 
on the issues of practice management and time management.  Seabrook, on the 
other hand, argues that a six-month or one-year fully stayed suspension on the 
condition that he submit to monitored probation is a more appropriate sanction. 
{¶ 11} In recommending that Seabrook be suspended from the practice of 
law for two years, all stayed on conditions, the panel cited Disciplinary Counsel v. 
Lape, 130 Ohio St.3d 273, 2011-Ohio-5757, 957 N.E.2d 772.  In Lape, we 
imposed a six-month suspension, all stayed on conditions,  on an attorney who 
neglected a client’s bankruptcy matter, failed to safeguard and return a client’s 
property, and failed to cooperate in the resulting disciplinary investigation.  The 
board questioned the relevance of the case in determining the appropriate sanction 
for Seabrook’s misconduct because there was no allegation that Lape had 
practiced law during her attorney registration suspension.  Nonetheless, the board 
adopted the panel’s recommended sanction of a two-year suspension, all stayed 
on the following conditions:  (1) that Seabrook enter into a two-year Ohio 
Lawyers Assistance Program (“OLAP”) contract, (2) that a mentor be appointed 
to help Seabrook with law-office practices, time management, and other strategies 
for running a successful practice, (3) that Seabrook take at least six hours of CLE 
courses relating to law-office practice and time management, and (4) that he 
commit no further misconduct.  Neither party has objected to this 
recommendation. 
{¶ 12} We have stated, “The 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).  But we have routinely imposed 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
 
indefinite suspensions for attorneys who continued to practice law after we had 
suspended their licenses for CLE and registration violations.  See, 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). 
{¶ 13} In Disciplinary Counsel v. Blackwell, 79 Ohio St.3d 395, 397, 683 
N.E.2d 1074 (1997), however, we imposed a two-year suspension with the second 
year stayed for an attorney who practiced while under suspension, finding that 
most of his violations occurred during his successful recovery from alcoholism.  
And in Disciplinary Counsel v. Bancsi, 79 Ohio St.3d 392, 394, 683 N.E.2d 1072 
(1997), recognizing the attorney’s prompt attempt to cure the CLE deficiency that 
had resulted in his suspension, his immediate payment of the outstanding fines, 
and the brief—five-week—duration of his CLE suspension, we imposed a one-
year suspension with six months stayed for the attorney’s continued practice 
while under suspension. 
{¶ 14} Here, Seabrook’s misconduct includes his continued practice of 
law during his registration suspension and his initial failure to cooperate in the 
ensuing disciplinary investigation.  He admits that his misconduct was due to his 
own lack of diligence, which appears to have been an issue at various times 
throughout his practice, and has continued through these disciplinary 
proceedings—as demonstrated by his unexcused tardiness at the panel hearing.  It 
appears that no clients suffered grave or irreparable harm as a result of Seabrook’s 
practice during his registration suspension—though their cases were undoubtedly 
delayed—and that he did not act with dishonest or selfish motives.  We do not 
take the recommendations of the panel and board lightly, but given the sanctions 
we have imposed for similar misconduct and our ongoing concerns about 
January Term, 2012 
7 
 
Seabrook’s mental health since he stopped taking his medications in 2010, we 
conclude that an actual suspension from the practice of law is warranted. 
{¶ 15} Accordingly, we suspend Eric M. Seabrook from the practice of 
law for two years, with the second year stayed on the conditions that he (1) enter 
into a two-year OLAP contract and fully comply with all OLAP 
recommendations, (2) attend at least six hours of CLE in law-office management 
in addition to the requirements of Gov.Bar R. X, and (3) commit no further 
misconduct.  Upon resuming the practice of law, Seabrook shall serve one year of 
monitored probation in accordance with Gov.Bar R. V(9).  If respondent fails to 
comply with the conditions of the stay, the stay shall be lifted, and respondent 
shall serve the full two-year suspension.  Costs are taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, 
and CUPP, JJ., concur. 
PFEIFER, J., dissents and would impose a two-year stayed suspension. 
MCGEE BROWN, J., not participating. 
__________________ 
Jonathan E. Coughlan, Disciplinary Counsel, and Carol A. Costa, 
Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. 
Eric M. Seabrook, pro se. 
______________________