Title: Disciplinary Counsel v. Hallquist

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. Hallquist, Slip Opinion No. 2011-Ohio-1819.] 
 
 
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. 2011-OHIO-1819 
DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. HALLQUIST. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as Disciplinary Counsel v. Hallquist,  
Slip Opinion No. 2011-Ohio-1819.] 
Attorneys — Misconduct — Default — Partially stayed suspension. 
(No. 2010-2169 — Submitted February 2, 2011 — Decided April 20, 2011.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 10-046. 
__________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Kevin Paul Hallquist of Fairmont, West Virginia, 
formerly of Cleveland, Ohio, Attorney Registration No. 0034385, was admitted to 
the practice of law in Ohio in 1986. 
{¶ 2} On June 14, 2010, relator, Disciplinary Counsel, filed a complaint 
charging respondent with professional misconduct arising from his failure to 
reasonably communicate with two clients, his neglect of their legal matters, and 
his failure to cooperate in the ensuing disciplinary investigations.  The Board of 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline attempted to serve respondent with 
a copy of the complaint by certified mail at the address he had registered with the 
Office of Attorney Registration, but the letter was returned unclaimed.  Therefore, 
the clerk of the Supreme Court of Ohio accepted service on respondent’s behalf, 
in accordance with Gov.Bar R. V(11)(B).  Respondent  had appeared for a 
deposition on one matter in December 2009, but he did not answer the complaint 
or otherwise appear in the proceeding, and relator moved for default pursuant to 
Gov.Bar R. V(6)(F). 
{¶ 3} A master commissioner appointed by the Board of Commissioners 
on Grievances and Discipline granted relator’s default motion, making findings of 
misconduct and recommending that respondent be indefinitely suspended from 
the practice of law.  The board adopted the master commissioner’s findings of fact 
and misconduct but recommends that we impose a two-year suspension with the 
last six months stayed.  We accept the board’s findings of fact, conclusions of 
law, and recommended sanction. 
Misconduct 
{¶ 4} In the first count, the board found that a husband and wife had 
retained respondent to pursue a claim for uninsured-motorist coverage after the 
husband was injured in an automobile accident.  The matter was settled, and in 
August 2008, the insurer issued a $2,000 settlement check.  Respondent retained 
the couple’s portion of the settlement proceeds as a flat fee to represent them in an 
unrelated matter. 
{¶ 5} In early 2009, however, the couple began to receive medical bills, 
totaling $1,108, for treatment of the husband’s injuries that they believed had 
been paid as part of the settlement.  Unable to reach respondent, the couple filed a 
grievance with relator. 
{¶ 6} At his December 3, 2009 deposition, respondent testified that 
pursuant to the terms of the settlement, the insurer was to pay all the couple’s 
January Term, 2011 
3 
 
medical bills plus $2,000.  He claimed that he was unaware of any unpaid medical 
bills and had no documentation regarding the terms of the settlement.  Respondent 
further testified that he would contact the couple and their insurer to investigate 
and resolve the matter.  Although respondent sent relator copies of several letters 
that he had faxed to the insurer and a document from the insurer confirming the 
amount of the settlement check, he did not contact the clients or resolve their 
unpaid medical bills. 
{¶ 7} In Count 2, respondent accepted $500 in May 2009 and another 
$100 in September 2009 to seek expungement of a client’s criminal conviction, 
but did not file the motion until October 2, 2009.  The trial court dismissed the 
motion, finding that the client had been notified of two separate hearing dates and 
had failed to appear.  The client avers that respondent did not inform him of either 
hearing date.  And although respondent signed for a letter of inquiry that relator 
sent to him via certified mail, he did not file a response. 
{¶ 8} Based upon these factual findings, the board concluded that 
respondent’s conduct with respect to each of these two counts violated 
Prof.Cond.R. 1.3 (requiring a lawyer to act with reasonable diligence in 
representing a client), 1.4(a)(2) (requiring a lawyer to reasonably consult with the 
client about the means by which the client’s objectives are to be accomplished), 
1.4(a)(3) (requiring a lawyer to keep the client reasonably informed about the 
status of a matter), and 8.1(b) (prohibiting a lawyer from knowingly failing to 
respond to a demand for information by a disciplinary authority during an 
investigation) and Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) (requiring a lawyer to cooperate with a 
disciplinary investigation).  We accept the board’s findings of fact and 
misconduct. 
Sanction 
{¶ 9} When imposing sanctions for attorney misconduct, we consider 
relevant factors, including the ethical duties that the lawyer violated and the 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
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 Section 10(B) of the Rules and Regulations Governing Procedure on 
Complaints and Hearings Before the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline (“BCGD Proc.Reg.”).  Disciplinary Counsel v. Broeren, 115 Ohio 
St.3d 473, 2007-Ohio-5251, 875 N.E.2d 935, ¶ 21. 
{¶ 10} As aggravating factors, the board found that respondent had 
engaged in a pattern of misconduct involving multiple offenses.  See BCGD 
Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(c) and (d).  He has failed to cooperate in the disciplinary 
process, refused to acknowledge the wrongful nature of his conduct, caused harm 
to vulnerable clients, and failed to make restitution.  See BCGD Proc.Reg. 
10(B)(1)(e), (g), (h), and (i).  The only mitigating factor is respondent’s lack of a 
prior disciplinary record.  See BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(a). 
{¶ 11} Relator argued that an indefinite suspension was the appropriate 
sanction for respondent’s neglect of client matters and failure to cooperate in the 
disciplinary investigation.  The master commissioner agreed, citing Disciplinary 
Counsel v. Mathewson, 113 Ohio St.3d 365, 2007-Ohio-2076, 865 N.E.2d 891, ¶ 
19 (imposing an indefinite suspension on an attorney who neglected clients’ 
cases, misused his client trust account, and failed to cooperate in the resulting 
investigation, finding that respondent’s multiple offenses had resulted in actual 
prejudice to the clients and to the administration of justice).  Without explaining 
its reasoning, however, the board recommends that we impose a two-year 
suspension with six months stayed.  Relator has not objected to the board’s 
recommendation. 
{¶ 12} We have recognized that an indefinite suspension is “ ‘especially 
fitting * * * where neglect of a legal matter is coupled with a failure to cooperate 
in the ensuing disciplinary investigation,’ ”  Disciplinary Counsel v. Boylan 
January Term, 2011 
5 
 
(1999), 85 Ohio St.3d 115, 117, 707 N.E.2d 465, quoting Warren Cty. Bar Assn. 
v. Lieser (1997), 79 Ohio St.3d 488, 490, 683 N.E.2d 1148.  We have also 
recognized that each disciplinary case is unique and that we may consider “all 
relevant factors” in determining what sanction to impose.  See BCGD Proc.Reg. 
10(B); Columbus Bar Assn. v. Chasser, 124 Ohio St.3d 578, 2010-Ohio- 956, 
Ohio, 925 N.E.2d 595, ¶ 20. 
{¶ 13} In Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Paulson, 111 Ohio St.3d 415, 2006-
Ohio-5859, 856 N.E.2d 970, ¶ 3-7, we sanctioned an attorney who had failed to 
timely file an appellate brief after settling a client’s case without authorization, 
failed to respond to the client’s communications, and failed to respond to the 
resulting disciplinary investigation.  Although Paulson’s ethical violations 
included dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation, conduct prejudicial to the 
administration of justice, handling a legal matter without adequate preparation, 
neglect of an entrusted legal matter, and failure to cooperate in a disciplinary 
investigation, we accepted the board’s recommendation of a two-year suspension, 
observing that his conduct appeared to have affected only one client.  Id. at ¶ 8, 
12. 
{¶ 14} Similarly, in Disciplinary Counsel v. Noel, 126 Ohio St.3d 56, 
2010-Ohio- 2714, 930 N.E.2d 312, ¶ 26-27, we imposed a two-year suspension 
with six months stayed on conditions on an attorney who had neglected the legal 
matters of two clients, causing the dismissal of a criminal appeal and the dismissal 
with prejudice of a civil case, had failed to timely deliver a client’s file, and had 
failed to cooperate in the disciplinary investigation.  And in Stark Cty. Bar Assn. 
v. Marosan, 106 Ohio St.3d 430, 2005-Ohio-5412, 835 N.E.2d 718, we 
sanctioned an attorney for neglecting the legal matters of multiple clients, failing 
to promptly return unearned fees to those clients, failing to maintain a client trust 
account, and failing to cooperate in the ensuing disciplinary investigation.  We 
accepted the board’s recommended sanction of a two-year suspension, with 18 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
 
months stayed on conditions, observing that “the respondent’s misconduct, while 
serious, did not involve dishonesty and did not result in irreparable harm to his 
clients.” Id. at ¶ 24. 
{¶ 15} Here, respondent has practiced law for more than 20 years without 
a disciplinary violation, and although serious, his misconduct has not caused 
irreparable harm to any clients.  Therefore, we agree that the appropriate sanction 
for his misconduct is a two-year suspension, with the last six months stayed on 
the conditions that he commit no further misconduct and that he make restitution 
to the clients harmed by his conduct. 
{¶ 16} Accordingly, Kevin Paul Hallquist is suspended from the practice 
of law in Ohio for two years.  The last six months of his suspension will be stayed 
on the conditions that he commit no further acts of misconduct and that he make 
restitution of $1,108 to the clients in count 1, representing the amount of their 
unpaid medical bills, and refund the $600 in legal fees he received from the client 
in count 2.  If he fails to comply with these conditions, the stay will be lifted, and 
he will serve the full two-year suspension.  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 Carol A. Costa, 
Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. 
______________________