Title: Mahoning Cty. Bar Assn. v. Hanni

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
Mahoning Cty. Bar Assn. v. Hanni, Slip Opinion No. 2016-Ohio-1174.] 
 
 
 
 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. 2016-OHIO-1174 
MAHONING COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION v. HANNI. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as Mahoning Cty. Bar Assn. v. Hanni, Slip Opinion No.  
2016-Ohio-1174.] 
Attorneys—Misconduct—Violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct—
Conditionally stayed one-year suspension. 
(No. 2015-1630—Submitted November 17, 2015—Decided March 24, 2016.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Professional Conduct of the Supreme 
Court, No. 2014-086. 
_______________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Heidi A. Hanni of Poland, Ohio, Attorney Registration 
No. 0074801, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 2002.  On December 
2, 2010, we imposed a conditional suspension of her license to practice law for six 
months for her neglect of a client matter and certain unsubstantiated allegations of 
ethical misconduct that she had made against the incumbent county prosecutor.  
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
2
Mahoning Cty. Bar Assn. v. Hanni, 127 Ohio St.3d 367, 2010-Ohio-5771, 939 
N.E.2d 1226. 
{¶ 2} In a complaint filed with the Board of Commissioners on Grievances 
and Discipline1 on December 19, 2014, relator, Mahoning County Bar Association, 
alleged that Hanni violated four Rules of Professional Conduct by failing to appear 
at scheduled client meetings and the final court hearing in a grandparent-custody 
matter. 
{¶ 3} The parties entered into stipulations of fact and agreed that Hanni 
neglected the clients’ matter, failed to keep them reasonably informed about the 
matter, and engaged in conduct that was prejudicial to the administration of justice.  
They also stipulated to one aggravating factor and four mitigating factors and 
jointly recommended that Hanni be suspended for 12 months with the entire 
suspension stayed on conditions. 
{¶ 4} A panel of the Board of Professional conduct heard Hanni’s testimony 
and unanimously adopted the parties’ stipulated findings of fact, misconduct, 
aggravating and mitigating factors, and recommended sanction.  The board adopted 
the panel report in its entirety.  We adopt the board’s findings of fact and 
misconduct and agree that a 12-month suspension, fully stayed on conditions, is the 
appropriate sanction in this case. 
Misconduct 
{¶ 5} In September 2014, Donald and Diane Goodwin, who had legal 
custody of their minor grandson, retained Hanni to represent them in a custody 
dispute after the boy’s father moved for custody in the Columbiana County Juvenile 
Court.  They paid Hanni a retainer of $2,968 for her representation. 
                                                 
1 Effective January 1, 2015, the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline has been 
renamed the Board of Professional Conduct.  See Gov.Bar R. V(1)(A), 140 Ohio St.3d CII. 
 
January Term, 2016 
 
3
{¶ 6} During Hanni’s representation, she failed to appear for three 
scheduled appointments with the Goodwins and did not notify them in advance of 
her absence.  She also sought to continue a hearing scheduled several weeks after 
her mother’s death on the ground that she was in Columbus tending to her daughter, 
who was despondent following the death of her grandmother.  She mailed the 
motion to opposing counsel two days before the hearing and faxed it to the court 
the afternoon before the hearing, but the motion did not come to the attention of the 
magistrate or Hanni’s clients until the morning of the hearing.  The magistrate 
initially denied the motion but granted it upon learning that Hanni was already in 
Columbus. 
{¶ 7} Although the order rescheduling the hearing stated that no further 
continuances would be granted, Hanni called the court the day before the next 
scheduled hearing to request a continuance on the ground that she was ill.  When 
court personnel informed her that her motion would be denied if it was filed, Hanni 
attempted to engage substitute counsel but discovered that the attorney had a 
conflict that disqualified him from the representation.  She faxed a motion for 
continuance to the court on the morning of the hearing stating that she was battling 
a severe bronchial infection and that she had an appointment to see her doctor that 
morning.  She also attached a doctor’s excuse she had received the preceding week 
in an apparent effort to demonstrate that she was suffering from an ongoing illness 
that had not responded to earlier treatment.  Because the doctor’s excuse stated that 
Hanni was able to return to work five days before the scheduled hearing, the 
magistrate instructed court personnel to inform her that the hearing would go 
forward.  After Hanni failed to appear, the Goodwins waived their right to counsel 
and represented themselves.  They ultimately prevailed and retained custody of 
their grandson. 
{¶ 8} The parties stipulated and the panel and board found that Hanni’s 
conduct violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.3 (requiring a lawyer to act with reasonable 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
4
diligence in representing a client), 1.4(a)(3) (requiring a lawyer to keep a client 
reasonably informed about the status of a matter), and 8.4(d) (prohibiting a lawyer 
from engaging in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice).  The 
panel also unanimously dismissed two other alleged violations.  See Gov.Bar R. 
V(12)(G). 
{¶ 9} We adopt the board’s findings of fact and misconduct. 
Sanction 
{¶ 10} When imposing sanctions for attorney misconduct, we consider 
relevant factors, including the ethical duties 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.  We also weigh evidence of the aggravating 
and mitigating factors listed in Gov.Bar R. V(13). 
{¶ 11} Here, the parties stipulated and the board found that the relevant 
mitigating factors include the absence of a dishonest or selfish motive, Hanni’s full 
and free disclosure to the board and full cooperation in the disciplinary proceeding, 
her payment of full restitution, and evidence of her good character and reputation 
apart from her misconduct.  See Gov.Bar R. V(13)(C)(2) through (5).  In addition, 
there is no evidence that the Goodwins suffered any lasting harm as the result of 
Hanni’s misconduct.  And the only aggravating factor present is Hanni’s prior 
misconduct, for which she served a stayed six-month suspension.  Mahoning Cty. 
Bar Assn. v. Hanni, 127 Ohio St.3d 367, 2010-Ohio-5771, 939 N.E.2d 1226. 
{¶ 12} The parties and the board recommend that Hanni be suspended from 
the practice of law for one year, fully stayed on the conditions that she serve a one-
year period of monitored probation in which the monitor shall act as a mentor and 
provide guidance regarding the proper operation and management of Hanni’s law 
practice and that she complete six hours of continuing-legal-education (“CLE”) 
courses that address law-office operation and management and are approved by 
relator.  In support of that sanction, the parties and the board cite two cases—
January Term, 2016 
 
5
Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn. v. Berk, 132 Ohio St.3d 82, 2012-Ohio-2167, 969 
N.E.2d 256; and Disciplinary Counsel v. Oberholtzer, 136 Ohio St.3d 314, 2013-
Ohio-3706, 995 N.E.2d 217. 
{¶ 13} In Berk, we imposed an 18-month suspension, fully stayed on the 
condition that the attorney complete a period of monitored probation, after he failed 
to attend scheduled conferences in two client matters, resulting in the dismissal of 
both cases.  Berk did not act with a dishonest or selfish motive, cooperated in the 
disciplinary investigation, made a timely, good-faith effort to rectify the 
consequences of his misconduct, and presented evidence of his good character, but 
he also had a prior disciplinary record and engaged in a pattern of neglecting 
matters that caused irreparable harm to his clients.  Id. at ¶ 18-19. 
{¶ 14} And in Oberholtzer, we suspended an attorney for 12 months, all 
stayed on conditions, for engaging in a pattern of misconduct by neglecting two 
matters, failing to respond to a client’s reasonable request for information about the 
representation, and failing to deposit a retainer into his client trust account.  
Oberholtzer did not have a prior disciplinary record, but he initially failed to 
cooperate in the relator’s investigation.  Id. at ¶ 30-31. 
{¶ 15} When attorneys who have no prior disciplinary record have 
neglected one or two matters and failed to reasonably communicate with the 
affected clients, we often suspend them from the practice of law for six months, all 
stayed on conditions.  See, e.g., Mahoning Cty. Bar Assn. v. Malvasi, 143 Ohio 
St.3d 140, 2015-Ohio-2361, 34 N.E.3d 916 (imposing a fully stayed six-month 
suspension, one year of monitored probation, and law-office-management training 
on an attorney who neglected a single matter, failed to reasonably communicate 
with the clients, and failed to deposit the clients’ retainer into his client trust 
account); Dayton Bar Assn. v. Hooks, 139 Ohio St.3d 462, 2014-Ohio-2596, 12 
N.E.3d 1212 (imposing a stayed six-month suspension, fully stayed on conditions 
including 12 hours of law-office-management training, on an attorney who failed 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
6
to file documents regarding the modification of a client’s child-support obligation 
and failed to reasonably communicate with the client, who continued to pay child 
support for a child who was living with him). 
{¶ 16} But when an attorney’s neglect and failure to communicate have also 
involved making false statements to the affected clients, we have imposed an actual 
suspension from the practice of law.  See, e.g., Disciplinary Counsel v. Raso, 129 
Ohio St.3d 277, 2011-Ohio-2900, 951 N.E.2d 755 (imposing a six-month actual 
suspension on an attorney whose only prior discipline was an attorney-registration 
violation after he neglected two matters and deliberately made false representations 
to both clients); Disciplinary Counsel v. Broeren, 115 Ohio St.3d 473, 2007-Ohio-
5251, 875 N.E.2d 935 (imposing a six-month actual suspension on an attorney with 
no prior discipline who neglected a client’s case, fabricated letters in an attempt to 
conceal that neglect, and then failed to timely respond to the ensuing disciplinary 
investigation). 
{¶ 17} Here, Hanni neglected a single matter by seeking to continue two 
custody hearings without giving adequate notice to her clients or the court.  Rather 
than delay the matter the second time, her clients elected to forego legal 
representation and proceed pro se.  Fortunately, they prevailed and maintained 
custody of their minor grandson.  Given the significant mitigating factors present 
in this case—and in spite of Hanni’s prior discipline—we agree that a one-year 
suspension, fully stayed on the conditions that Hanni serve one year of monitored 
probation and the completion of six hours of CLE in law-office operation and 
management, will adequately protect the public from future misconduct. 
{¶ 18} Accordingly, Heidi A. Hanni is suspended from the practice of law 
for one year, fully stayed on the conditions that she serve a one-year period of 
monitored probation pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(21), complete six hours of 
continuing-legal-education courses that address law-office operation and 
management and are approved by relator, and engage in no further misconduct.  If 
January Term, 2016 
 
7
Hanni fails to abide by these conditions, the stay will be lifted and she will serve 
the full one-year suspension.  Costs are taxed to Hanni. 
Judgment accordingly. 
O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, KENNEDY, FRENCH, and O’NEILL, JJ., concur. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, J., dissent and would impose a suspension of 
one year with no portion stayed. 
_________________ 
Donald C. Comstock Jr. and Ronald E. Slipski, for relator. 
John B. Juhasz, for respondent. 
_________________