Title: Akron Bar Assn. v. Hoffer

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

AKRON BAR ASSOCIATION v. HOFFER. 
[Cite as Akron Bar Assn. v. Hoffer (1999), 86 Ohio St.3d 97.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — One-year suspension with six months of 
suspension stayed on conditions — Neglecting entrusted legal matters — 
Failing to seek lawful objectives of clients — Failing to carry out contracts 
of employment — Prejudicing or damaging client during course of 
professional relationship — Engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, 
fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation — Engaging in conduct adversely 
reflecting on fitness to practice law — Failing to promptly return client’s 
files upon request — Failing to cooperate in disciplinary investigation. 
(No. 98-2640 — Submitted May 4, 1999 — Decided July 7, 1999.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 97-49. 
 
On December 9, 1997, relator, Akron Bar Association, filed an amended 
complaint charging respondent, Paul R. Hoffer of Akron, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0024962, with violating several Disciplinary Rules and a Rule for 
the Government of the Bar.  After respondent answered, the matter was heard by a 
panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme 
Court (“board”). 
 
Based on the stipulations, exhibits, and testimony of the parties, the panel 
found that in March 1996, the Akron Health Department ordered Sheralynn Y. 
Stevens to repair the roof on her house, which she owned subject to a mortgage.  
When the mortgagee learned of the repair order, it refused to accept any more 
mortgage payments from Stevens and filed a foreclosure action in July 1996.  After 
the health department issued an order to raze the house, Stevens retained 
respondent and paid him $160 to file for an injunction to prevent the city from 
demolishing her house while she made arrangements to have her roof fixed.  
2 
Respondent did not file the action nor did he subsequently advise Stevens that he 
had not filed it.  On January 4, 1997, Stevens entered into a contract to sell her 
home, and the purchaser sent a facsimile copy of the contract to respondent.  
Respondent did not contact either the health department or the mortgagee, and on 
January 7, the city razed the house. When Stevens informed respondent, he 
admitted that he had never filed the injunction action. The panel concluded that 
respondent’s conduct violated DR 6-101(A)(3) (neglecting an entrusted legal 
matter), 7-101(A)(1) (failing to seek lawful objectives of client), 7-101(A)(2) 
(failing to carry out a contract of employment), and 7-101(A)(3) (prejudicing or 
damaging client during course of professional relationship). 
 
The panel additionally found that in 1990, the partners of Didado Energy 
Systems (“DES”) retained respondent to represent DES in a contract dispute and to 
institute a replevin action against Lamson & Sessions Co., d.b.a. Kent Machine.  
Respondent filed suit and obtained a common pleas court judgment in favor of 
DES, but the judgment was reversed on appeal because the court of appeals 
determined that the contract dispute was subject to arbitration. 
 
DES retained respondent and another attorney to handle the arbitration 
proceedings, and in 1994, the arbitrator ordered that if respondent did not file a 
brief electing remedies for DES by July 15, 1994, the arbitration would be 
dismissed without prejudice.  Respondent did not file the brief and did not notify 
DES or its partners that the brief had not been filed.  In October 1994, the 
American Arbitration Association (“AAA”) informed respondent that the case 
would be closed unless it was advised otherwise within ten days.  Respondent took 
no action, and the AAA notified him that the case had been dismissed for inaction.  
Respondent did not inform DES or its partners of the dismissal, and when Gary 
Didado, one of the DES partners, contacted respondent, he represented to Didado 
that “things were progressing.” 
3 
 
In May 1996, Didado discovered that the arbitration had been dismissed for 
inaction in October 1994.  Nevertheless, through 1997, respondent repeatedly 
asserted to Didado that the arbitration had been voluntarily dismissed without 
prejudice despite knowing that it had been dismissed due to his inaction.  
Respondent also failed to promptly return all of the files concerning his 
representation of DES despite Didado’s numerous requests.  DES subsequently 
refiled the arbitration proceeding and received a significant award.  After Didado 
filed a grievance against respondent, respondent did not respond to the initial 
investigative inquiries by relator.  The panel concluded that respondent’s conduct 
violated DR 6-101(A)(3), 7-101(A)(1) and (2), 1-102(A)(4) (engaging in conduct 
involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation), 1-102(A)(6) (engaging 
in conduct that adversely reflects on lawyer’s fitness to practice law), 9-102(B)(4) 
(failing to promptly return client’s files upon request), and Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) 
(failing to cooperate in a disciplinary investigation). 
 
In mitigation, the panel found that, as respondent testified, his office 
procedures had been lax and he had failed to follow up with his clients concerning 
his representation.  It noted that since the disciplinary proceeding began, 
respondent had entered into an office sharing arrangement with other attorneys and 
that he had hired his own secretary to help alleviate some of his previous office 
management problems.  The panel found that respondent also suffered from sleep 
apnea, which contributed to some of his forgetfulness and neglect, and that he was 
being treated for this condition. 
 
The panel recommended that respondent receive a six-month suspension 
from the practice of law in Ohio, with the entire suspension stayed on the 
conditions that respondent’s office practice be monitored for six months, that 
respondent obtain certification by a physician that his medical condition has been 
treated and no longer poses any interference with his ability to practice law in 
4 
Ohio, that respondent attend an additional six hours of continuing legal education 
on ethics and professional responsibility in addition to his regular CLE 
requirements, that respondent reimburse DES for the $1,568.78 in costs in 
connection with the dismissal of the arbitration proceedings, and that respondent 
return the $160 retainer to Stevens.  The board adopted the findings and 
conclusions of the panel but recommended a harsher sanction because it found 
respondent’s acts concerning the Didado matter to be deceitful. The board 
recommended that respondent be suspended from the practice of law in Ohio for 
one year, with six months of the suspension stayed upon the conditions 
recommended by the panel. 
__________________ 
 
Brouse & McDowell and Marc B. Merklin; Lee Peterson; James M. 
Campbell; and Michael C. Scanlon, for relator. 
 
James E. Banas and Gregg A. Manes, for respondent. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam.  We adopt the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of 
the board.  “[W]hen an attorney engages in a course of conduct that violates DR 1-
102(A)(4), the attorney will be actually suspended from the practice of law for an 
appropriate period of time.”  Disciplinary Counsel v. Fowerbaugh (1995), 74 Ohio 
St.3d 187, 191, 658 N.E.2d 237, 240.  Here, respondent’s repeated deceit regarding 
the arbitration proceedings constitutes a “course of conduct” rather than an isolated 
act and consequently warrants an actual suspension from the practice of law.  See, 
e.g., Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Caliman (1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 461, 700 N.E.2d 857.  
Sleep apnea does not exonerate respondent from punishment for his acts of deceit.  
See Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Knowlton (1998), 81 Ohio St.3d 76, 689 N.E.2d 538.  
The panel’s recommendation of a stayed suspension, which the board properly 
5 
rejected, did not follow the Fowerbaugh prescription of an “actual suspension.”  
Caliman, 83 Ohio St.3d at 462, 700 N.E.2d at 857. 
 
Accordingly, we suspend respondent from the practice of law in Ohio for 
one year, with six months of the suspension stayed on the conditions that 
respondent’s office practice be monitored for six months, that respondent obtain 
certification by a physician that his medical condition has been treated and no 
longer poses any interference with his ability to practice law in Ohio, that 
respondent attend an additional six hours of continuing legal education on ethics 
and professional responsibility in addition to his regular CLE requirements, that 
respondent reimburse DES for the $1,568.78 in costs in connection with the 
dismissal of the arbitration proceedings, and that respondent return the $160 
retainer to Stevens.  Costs taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur.