Title: Toledo Bar Assn. v. Hickman

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as Toledo Bar Assn. v. Hickman, 119 Ohio St.3d 102, 2008-Ohio-3837.] 
 
 
TOLEDO BAR ASSOCIATION v. HICKMAN. 
[Cite as Toledo Bar Assn. v. Hickman, 119 Ohio St.3d 102, 2008-Ohio-3837.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct —Neglect of an entrusted legal matter — Conduct 
involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation — Failure to 
preserve the identity of funds and property of a client — Charging or 
collecting a clearly excessive fee — Failure to promptly pay or deliver 
funds to which a client is entitled — Permanent disbarment. 
(No. 2008-0398 – Submitted May 6, 2008 – Decided August 6, 2008.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 07-039. 
____________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Gregg D. Hickman of Toledo, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0020032, was admitted to the Ohio bar in 1978.  On December 
28, 2005, we suspended respondent for one year with six months stayed for 
neglecting two personal-injury matters and lying to his clients about his neglect.  
Toledo Bar Assn. v. Hickman, 107 Ohio St.3d 296, 2005-Ohio-6513, 839 N.E.2d 
24. 
{¶ 2} During that suspension, the relator, Toledo Bar Association, 
discovered other misconduct and charged respondent with additional disciplinary 
violations.  In that second case, we suspended respondent for one year, the 
suspension  to be served consecutively to his first suspension, for taking a retainer 
when there was no legally viable claim and for neglecting the criminal defense of 
a client.  Toledo Bar Assn. v. Hickman, 113 Ohio St.3d 164, 2007-Ohio-1256, 863 
N.E.2d 169. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
{¶ 3} On June 11, 2007, relator filed a complaint charging respondent 
with additional violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility.  Respondent 
stipulated to several of the violations set forth in the complaint, and a panel of the 
Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline held a hearing.  Based on 
the stipulations and other evidence, the panel made findings of fact, conclusions 
of law, and a recommendation, which the board adopted. 
{¶ 4} The board recommends that we permanently disbar respondent 
from the practice of law.  We adopt the board’s findings of misconduct and the 
recommended sanction. 
Misconduct 
Mottmiller Grievance 
{¶ 5} In 2003, Edward Mottmiller paid respondent a retainer to 
investigate a possible forged will, of which Mottmiller would have been a 
beneficiary.  Respondent made misrepresentations to Mottmiller about work that 
he was performing on Mottmiller’s behalf.  In 2005, respondent told Mottmiller 
that a pretrial hearing had been scheduled and that a trial date was set for August 
or September 2005.  In fact, there was no pretrial or trial date scheduled.  
Respondent also told Mottmiller that he had filed for discovery, which was also 
not true. 
{¶ 6} As to the Mottmiller grievance, respondent admitted and the board 
found that respondent had violated DR 1-102(A)(4) (prohibiting a lawyer from 
engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation).  
The board also found that respondent had violated DR 6-101(A)(3) (prohibiting a 
lawyer from neglecting an entrusted legal matter). 
Roby Grievance 
{¶ 7} On May 10, 2006, Rik Roby paid respondent a $1,500 retainer to 
represent him in a domestic relations matter.  Although respondent told Roby that 
he was suspended from the practice of law at that time, he also told Roby that his 
January Term, 2008 
3 
suspension was about to terminate and that he would be reinstated in June or July 
2006.  This was not true, as respondent was aware of additional grievances 
pending against him that would likely prevent his reinstatement.  In fact, two days 
after respondent accepted Roby’s check, respondent attended a disciplinary 
hearing on those additional grievances.  At that hearing, respondent stipulated to 
the charged misconduct and was informed that the hearing panel would 
recommend a one-year suspension in addition to the six months he was already 
serving.  Yet respondent did not inform Roby that he would not be reinstated, and 
he did not refund Roby’s retainer. 
{¶ 8} Respondent deposited the $1,500 into his client trust account and 
agreed to transfer the money to Robert Woodley, an attorney that respondent had 
occasionally worked with, once Woodley started to represent Roby.  Respondent 
did not pay Woodley any money. 
{¶ 9} Thereafter, Roby tried to contact respondent several times, but 
respondent avoided Roby’s calls.  Roby finally filed a grievance seeking a refund 
of his retainer.  In a written response to the grievance dated August 27, 2006, 
respondent stated that Roby’s retainer was still in his client trust account.  
However, respondent’s client trust account had dropped below $1,500 on May 26, 
2006, and never again rose to that level.  In fact, on August 27, 2006, there was 
only $32.36 in the account. 
{¶ 10} Respondent stipulated and the board found that respondent had 
violated DR 6-101(A)(3), 3-101(B) (prohibiting a lawyer from practicing law in a 
jurisdiction where to do so would be in violation of regulations of the profession 
in that jurisdiction), and 9-102(A) (requiring a lawyer to preserve the identity of 
funds and property of a client).  Although not stipulated, the board also found that 
respondent had violated DR 1-102(A)(4). 
Stutzman Grievance 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
{¶ 11} In August 2005, Stanley Stutzman retained respondent in a divorce 
action.  Respondent accepted a $12,500 retainer and placed it in his client trust 
account.  Respondent then made numerous withdrawals from the account even 
though he had not earned those amounts.  When the retainer was gone, respondent 
requested another $5,000, which Stutzman paid.  One month later, respondent 
requested and received an additional $5,000 from Stutzman. 
{¶ 12} Respondent received his first suspension from the practice of law 
six days later, and he advised Stutzman that he was withdrawing from the case.  
Respondent did not repay any of the money he received from Stutzman. 
{¶ 13} In regard to the Stutzman matter, respondent stipulated and the 
board found violations of DR 2-106(A) (prohibiting a lawyer from charging or 
collecting a clearly excessive fee) and 9-102(B)(4) (requiring a lawyer to 
promptly pay or deliver upon request funds to which the client is entitled). 
Recommended Sanction 
{¶ 14} In recommending a sanction, the board considered the aggravating 
and mitigating factors listed in Section 10 of the Rules and Regulations 
Governing Procedure on Complaints and Hearings Before the Board of 
Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline (“BCGD Proc.Reg.”). 
{¶ 15} As aggravating factors, the board noted that respondent had two 
prior disciplinary cases in which respondent was found to have committed the 
same type of misconduct – client neglect, improper retention of client funds, and 
lying to clients – exhibited in this case.  BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(a).  See 
Toledo Bar Assn. v. Hickman, 107 Ohio St.3d 296, 2005-Ohio-6513, 839 N.E.2d 
24, and Toledo Bar Assn. v. Hickman, 113 Ohio St.3d 164, 2007-Ohio-1256, 863 
N.E.2d 169.  The board found that respondent had acted with a dishonest or 
selfish motive, engaged in a pattern of misconduct, failed to acknowledge the 
wrongful nature of his misconduct, and failed to make restitution to his clients, 
January Term, 2008 
5 
many of whom were vulnerable.  BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(b), (c), (g), (h), and 
(i). 
{¶ 16} In mitigation, the board found only that respondent had cooperated 
in the disciplinary process.  BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(d). 
{¶ 17} The panel recommended that respondent be permanently disbarred 
from the practice of law.  The board adopted the panel’s recommendation. 
Review 
{¶ 18} Respondent has not challenged the board’s findings of misconduct 
or the recommended sanction.  We have reviewed the board’s record and its 
report, and we agree that respondent violated DR 1-102(A)(4), 2-106(A), 3-
101(B), 6-101(A)(3), 9-102(A), and 9-102(B)(4).  We also agree that the board’s 
recommended sanction is appropriate. 
{¶ 19} Accordingly, respondent is permanently disbarred from the 
practice of law in Ohio.  Costs are taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
MOYER, 
C.J., 
and 
PFEIFER, 
LUNDBERG 
STRATTON, 
O’CONNOR, 
O’DONNELL, and CUPP, JJ., concur. 
LANZINGER, J., not participating. 
____________ 
 
 
 
Michael Jilek and Chad M. Tuschman, for relator. 
 
Gregg D. Hickman, pro se. 
____________