Title: Disciplinary Counsel v. Hall

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. Hall, Slip Opinion No. 2012-Ohio-783.] 
 
 
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-783 
DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. HALL. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as Disciplinary Counsel v. Hall,  
Slip Opinion No. 2012-Ohio-783.] 
Attorneys—Misconduct—Multiple violations of Rules of Professional Conduct, 
including failing to act with reasonable diligence in representing a client 
and failing to keep a client reasonably informed about the status of a 
matter—Two-year suspension with six months stayed on conditions. 
(No. 2011-1017—Submitted August 8, 2011—Decided March 1, 2012.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 10-042. 
__________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Eric D. Hall of Medina, Ohio, Attorney Registration 
No. 0067566, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1997. 
{¶ 2} On November 29, 2010, relator, disciplinary counsel, filed an 
amended complaint with the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
Discipline alleging 13 counts of misconduct.  Relying on the parties’ joint 
stipulation of facts and violations, as well as testimony at a formal hearing, the 
board made findings of fact and misconduct and recommended that respondent 
pay restitution and be suspended from the practice of law for 24 months with 6 
months stayed.  We adopt the board’s findings of facts and misconduct and accept 
its recommended sanction. 
Misconduct 
{¶ 3} The complaint before the board alleged 13 counts of misconduct.  
The board, in accordance with the parties’ stipulation, found that four of them had 
not been proved by clear and convincing evidence and dismissed them. 
{¶ 4} In all the remaining counts, Hall agreed to represent clients but 
then failed to perform the agreed-upon work or to respond to his clients’ efforts to 
reach him.  In all but one of the counts, Hall had accepted retainers from the 
clients, although he has refunded one retainer.  And in one of the counts, Hall 
added to his misconduct by misrepresenting to a client that he had filed a 
complaint in court. 
{¶ 5} The board concluded that the conduct described above resulted in 
violations of Prof.Cond.R. 1.3, 1.4(a)(3), 1.4(a)(4), 1.16(e), 8.4(c), and 8.4(h).  
Some of Hall’s misconduct occurred while the Code of Professional 
Responsibility remained in effect; as to this conduct, the board found that Hall 
had violated DR 1-102(A)(6). 
{¶ 6} We adopt the board’s findings. 
Sanction 
{¶ 7} When imposing sanctions for attorney misconduct, we consider 
relevant factors, including the duties the lawyer violated, the lawyer’s mental 
state, and 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 
January Term, 2012 
3 
 
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. Because each disciplinary case 
is unique, we are not limited to the factors specified in the rule but may take into 
account “all relevant factors” in determining what sanction to impose.  BCGD 
Proc.Reg. 10(B). 
{¶ 8} As aggravating factors, the parties stipulated and the board found 
that Hall had demonstrated a pattern of misconduct, committed multiple offenses, 
and harmed his victims.  See BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(c), (d), and (h). 
{¶ 9} As to mitigating factors, the parties stipulated and the board found 
that respondent lacked a prior disciplinary record, lacked a dishonest or selfish 
motive, had displayed a generally cooperative attitude toward the disciplinary 
proceedings, and had presented evidence of good character and reputation.  See 
BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(a), (b), (d), and (e). 
{¶ 10} The 
board, 
in 
agreement 
with 
the 
parties’ 
stipulation, 
recommended that Hall be suspended from the practice of law for 24 months with 
6 months stayed, followed by a one-year probation.  It further recommended that 
reinstatement be conditioned on Hall’s payment of full restitution to his clients 
and of the costs of these proceedings. 
{¶ 11} We adopt the board’s recommended sanction, which is appropriate 
in this case.  See, e.g., Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn. v. Gresley, 127 Ohio St.3d 
430, 2010-Ohio-6208, 940 N.E.2d 945 (imposing two-year suspension with six 
months conditionally stayed when attorney neglected client matters and failed to 
respond to client communications); Columbus Bar Assn. v. Ellis, 120 Ohio St.3d 
89, 2008-Ohio-5278, 896 N.E.2d 703 (imposing two-year suspension when 
attorney accepted fees, neglected client matters, and deceived clients).  The 
record, the balance of aggravating and mitigating factors, and precedent all 
support the board’s recommendation. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
{¶ 12} Accordingly, Eric D. Hall is suspended from the practice of law in 
the state of Ohio for 24 months with 6 months stayed, followed by a one-year 
probation.  Reinstatement is conditioned on the payment of restitution as follows: 
$1,500 to Tami Beckwith; $2,500 to Mike Henry; $700 to Stanley Fossett; $1,200 
to Lisa Linton; $1,000 to Nicholas Lorence; $2,500 to Debra Hetman; and $2,500 
to Nelson Corporan.  Costs are taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’DONNELL, 
LANZINGER, CUPP, and MCGEE BROWN, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
Jonathan E. Coughlan, Disciplinary Counsel, and Joseph Caligiuri, 
Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. 
Christopher J. Weber, for respondent. 
______________________