Title: Dayton Bar Assn. v. Hunt

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
Dayton Bar Assn. v. Hunt, Slip Opinion No. 2013-Ohio-1486.] 
 
 
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. 2013-OHIO-1486 
DAYTON BAR ASSOCIATION v. HUNT. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as Dayton Bar Assn. v. Hunt, Slip Opinion No. 2013-Ohio-1486.] 
Attorney misconduct, including engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, 
handling a legal matter without adequate preparation, and neglecting an 
entrusted legal matter—Indefinite suspension. 
(No. 2012-1694—Submitted January 23, 2013—Decided April 17, 2013.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 11-083. 
__________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Kevin Michael Hunt of Dayton, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0073405, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 2001.  
On December 21, 2010, we suspended Hunt’s license to practice law for six 
months for neglecting a client matter, failing to reasonably communicate with his 
clients regarding the matter, and failing to respond to a disciplinary investigation 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
into alleged misconduct involving another client.  Dayton Bar Assn. v. Hunt, 127 
Ohio St.3d 390, 2010-Ohio-6148, 939 N.E.2d 1247. 
{¶ 2} In October 2011, relator, Dayton Bar Association, charged Hunt 
with multiple violations of the Disciplinary Rules of the Code of Professional 
Responsibility1 arising out of his representation of several clients in a personal-
injury case. 
{¶ 3} Based on the parties’ stipulations of fact and the evidence submitted 
at the hearing, a panel of the Board of Commissioners found that Hunt had taken 
on a case that he was not competent to handle, proceeded without adequate 
preparation, neglected the matter, intentionally failed to pursue the clients’ lawful 
objectives, and led the clients to believe that their case remained pending when, in 
fact, summary judgment had been granted to the defendants.  Citing numerous 
aggravating factors, including Hunt’s pattern of misconduct, his failure to 
acknowledge the wrongful nature of that conduct, his absence of remorse, and the 
harm caused to vulnerable clients, the panel recommended that he be indefinitely 
suspended.  The board adopted the panel’s findings of fact, conclusions of law, 
and recommendation. 
{¶ 4} Because we find that Hunt engaged in a pattern of neglect and 
incompetence that lasted for four years and resulted in the dismissal of his clients’ 
case, failed to appreciate the gravity of his misconduct, and lied to the clients in 
order to conceal his neglect and incompetence, we adopt the board’s findings of 
fact and misconduct and indefinitely suspend him from the practice of law in 
Ohio. 
 
 
                                                 
1 On February 1, 2007, the Rules of Professional Conduct became effective, replacing the Code of 
Professional Responsibility in Ohio.  Hunt’s conduct occurred before February 1, 2007, and so it 
is governed by the Code of Professional Responsibility. 
 
January Term, 2013 
3 
 
Misconduct 
{¶ 5} While working at his father’s law firm in August 2002, 
approximately one year after he was admitted to the practice of law, Hunt agreed 
to represent Jennifer and Matthew Pond and their daughter Sarah in a personal-
injury matter.  Mrs. Pond and Sarah were injured in an auto accident when a 
vehicle (“vehicle I”) waiting to make a left turn was struck from behind by 
another vehicle (“vehicle II”) and pushed across the center line into the Ponds’ 
oncoming vehicle.  In June 2004, Hunt filed a complaint, against the driver of 
vehicle I and against the father of the driver of vehicle II.  Hunt was under the 
mistaken belief that the driver of vehicle II could not be held legally responsible 
for the injuries caused by the accident because she was a minor. 
{¶ 6} Mr. and Mrs. Pond gave their depositions in 2005 and were advised 
by Hunt that there would be a settlement conference in July of that year.  Before 
the settlement conference, however, both defendants moved for summary 
judgment.  Hunt did not respond to either motion.  He testified at the hearing in 
this case that he did not respond to the motion filed by the father of the minor 
driver, because he believed that the driver of vehicle I had caused the accident.  
He realized his mistake when he received the second motion for summary 
judgment, but again filed no response.  The court granted both motions, and on 
July 14, 2005—just days before the settlement conference was to occur—
dismissed the case.  Rather than inform the Ponds of this fact, Hunt told them that 
the settlement conference had been canceled and that it would be rescheduled.  He 
later assured Mrs. Pond that the case remained active. 
{¶ 7} Although Hunt successfully moved the court for relief from one of 
the summary judgments in April 2006 and was granted 20 days to respond to the 
summary-judgment motion, he failed to avail himself of that opportunity.  The 
court once again granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant.  A Civ.R. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
60(B) motion that Hunt filed in October 2006 was denied on the ground that it did 
not contain a proper certificate of service. 
{¶ 8} Frustrated by Hunt’s lack of communication, Mrs. Pond consulted 
with another attorney in November 2006.  That attorney discovered that the 
Ponds’ case had been dismissed in 2005.  After he advised them of that fact and 
the fact that the statute of limitations had run on Mrs. Pond’s claim, the Ponds 
retained him to pursue a malpractice action against Hunt for the loss of Mrs. 
Pond’s claim and to pursue their daughter’s personal-injury claim, which 
remained viable because she was a minor. 
{¶ 9} On these facts, the board found that Hunt had violated DR 1-
102(A)(4) (prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, 
fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation), 6-101(A)(1) (prohibiting a lawyer from 
handling a legal matter that he is not competent to handle, without obtaining 
assistance from a lawyer who is competent to handle it), 6-101(A)(2) (prohibiting 
a lawyer from handling a legal matter without adequate preparation), 6-101(A)(3) 
(prohibiting a lawyer from neglecting an entrusted legal matter), and 7-101(A)(1) 
(prohibiting a lawyer from intentionally failing to seek the lawful objectives of his 
client). 
{¶ 10} We find that the record clearly and convincingly supports the 
board’s findings of fact and misconduct and hereby adopt them. 
Sanction 
{¶ 11} When imposing sanctions for attorney misconduct, we consider 
relevant factors, including the ethical duties that 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).  Disciplinary Counsel v. Broeren, 115 Ohio 
St.3d 473, 2007-Ohio-5251, 875 N.E.2d 935, ¶ 21. 
January Term, 2013 
5 
 
{¶ 12} The board found a number of aggravating factors that weighed in 
favor of a harsh sanction, the first being Hunt’s prior disciplinary sanction for 
similar conduct in his handling of a medical-negligence case.  See BCGD 
Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(a).  Though his misconduct in that case occurred after the 
misconduct at issue here, the board found that it was relevant because it 
demonstrated that Hunt had engaged in a pattern of misconduct involving 
multiple offenses.  See BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(c) and (d).  He acted with a 
dishonest or selfish motive when he lied to his clients about the status of the 
settlement conference in an effort to conceal his poor legal representation.  See 
BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(b).  And although Hunt stipulated to most of the 
factual allegations of relator’s complaint, he failed to acknowledge the wrongful 
nature of his conduct, offered little insight into or explanation for his actions, and 
stipulated to only two of the alleged violations—that he was not competent to 
handle the Ponds’ personal-injury matter and that he had failed to adequately 
prepare their case.  Hunt also caused harm to Mrs. Pond, a vulnerable client 
whose claims were extinguished because Hunt did not file suit against the true 
tortfeasor before the statute of limitations expired.2  See BCGD Proc.Reg. 
10(B)(1)(h).  The delay occasioned by Hunt’s neglect and the resultant 
malpractice action left Mrs. Pond frustrated with the legal system. 
{¶ 13} In contrast to the multiple aggravating factors, very little mitigation 
evidence was offered.  The board did not find that any of the mitigating factors set 
forth in BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2) had been proven. 
{¶ 14} Relator recommended that Hunt be disbarred from the practice of 
law in Ohio.  Hunt argued in favor of a two-year suspension. 
{¶ 15} In its report, the board cites several cases in which we have 
imposed suspensions ranging from one year with six months stayed to two years 
                                                 
2 Because the Ponds’ daughter was a minor, the statute of limitations on her claim had not yet run.  
The Ponds retained new counsel, who filed an action on her behalf. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
 
for comparable misconduct.  See, e.g., Toledo Bar Assn. v. Hickman, 107 Ohio 
St.3d 296, 2005-Ohio-6513, 839 N.E.2d 24 (imposing a one-year suspension with 
six months stayed on an attorney who neglected client matters, intentionally failed 
to seek the lawful objectives of his clients, and repeatedly lied to the clients about 
the status of their cases); Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Larson, 124 Ohio St.3d 249, 
2009-Ohio-6766, 921 N.E.2d 618 (imposing a two-year suspension with the 
second year stayed on conditions on an attorney who repeatedly misled one client 
about what he had accomplished on her behalf, neglected two other client matters, 
failed to return unearned fees to all three clients, and failed to cooperate in two of 
the resulting disciplinary investigations); Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Glaeser, 
120 Ohio St.3d 350, 2008-Ohio-6199, 899 N.E.2d 140 (imposing a two-year 
suspension with one year stayed on an attorney who misled a client about having 
filed and settled a lawsuit on the client’s behalf); and Disciplinary Counsel v. 
Manning, 111 Ohio St.3d 349, 2006-Ohio-5794, 856 N.E.2d 259 (imposing a 
two-year suspension on an attorney who deceived his clients for several years by 
telling them that he had filed a medical-malpractice case on their behalf when he 
had not and by fabricating a purported settlement agreement to avoid being sued 
for legal malpractice). 
{¶ 16} The board noted that in cases with these types of violations, an 
actual suspension of at least two years is typically imposed and that a lesser 
sanction is imposed only when significant mitigating factors are present.  For 
example, Hickman (one-year suspension with six months stayed) had practiced 
law for 25 years with no prior disciplinary offenses, expressed remorse for his 
misconduct, cooperated in the disciplinary proceedings, and submitted references 
from two judges, a magistrate, and four attorneys attesting to his good character.  
Hickman at ¶ 10-11.  Larson (two-year suspension with one year stayed) had 
nearly 20 years of experience with no disciplinary violations, produced medical 
evidence that he suffered from a debilitating sleep disorder that compromised his 
January Term, 2013 
7 
 
concentration and productivity during the time of his misconduct, and submitted 
favorable assessments from three judges who commended his performance in 
their courts and voiced no misgivings about his integrity.  Larson at ¶ 1 and 20.  
Glaeser (two-year suspension with one year stayed) cooperated in the disciplinary 
investigation despite having serious health problems and candidly admitted to 
having misrepresented to his client that he had filed a complaint, when he had not.  
He also revealed that at the time of his misconduct, he was dealing with his son’s 
recent murder.  Glaeser at ¶ 10.  And although we did not accord great weight to 
the mitigating evidence in Manning (two-year suspension), we acknowledged that 
he did not have a prior disciplinary record, made full and free disclosure to the 
board, cooperated in the disciplinary proceedings, and submitted three letters 
attesting to his professionalism and good character.  Manning at ¶ 11 and 14. 
{¶ 17} Because of the paucity of mitigating evidence and the multiple 
aggravating factors present in this case, including Hunt’s lack of remorse, the 
board urges us to impose a greater sanction than we imposed in Hickman, Larson, 
Glaeser, and Manning and recommends that we indefinitely suspend Hunt from 
the practice of law. 
{¶ 18} Having reviewed the record and considered Hunt’s misconduct, the 
lack of mitigating factors, the significant aggravating factors—including Hunt’s 
failure to appreciate the wrongfulness of his misconduct and the attitude of 
indifference he exhibited throughout the disciplinary proceedings—we adopt the 
board’s recommended sanction. 
{¶ 19} Accordingly, Kevin Michael Hunt is indefinitely suspended from 
the practice of law in Ohio.  Costs are taxed to Hunt. 
Judgment accordingly. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, KENNEDY, 
FRENCH, and O’NEILL, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
8 
 
Pickrel, Schaeffer & Ebeling, and Andrew C. Storar, for relator. 
Thomas J. Replogle, for respondent. 
______________________