Title: Disciplinary Counsel v. Hillis

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. Hillis, Slip Opinion No. 2014-Ohio-2113.] 
 
 
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. 2014-OHIO-2113 
DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. HILLIS. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets,  
it may be cited as Disciplinary Counsel v. Hillis,  
Slip Opinion No. 2014-Ohio-2113.] 
Attorney discipline—Consent to discipline—Conduct adversely reflecting on 
fitness to practice law—Six-month stayed suspension. 
(No. 2013-1244—Submitted September 11, 2013—Decided May 22, 2014.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 2013-024. 
____________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Scott Thomas Hillis of Zanesville, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0042087, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1989.  
On April 8, 2013, relator, disciplinary counsel, charged Hillis with professional 
misconduct after Hillis was arrested and charged and pleaded no contest to 
misdemeanor offenses of solicitation and criminal trespass following the 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
discovery of Hillis with a known prostitute in his parked car on private property.  
Hillis at the time was the elected part-time law director for Zanesville, Ohio, 
{¶ 2} A panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline subsequently considered the cause on the parties’ consent-to-discipline 
agreement.  See BCGD Proc.Reg. 11. 
{¶ 3} In the consent-to-discipline agreement, Hillis stipulates to the facts 
alleged in relator’s complaint and agrees that his conduct violated Prof.Cond.R. 
8.4(h) (prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct that adversely reflects on 
the lawyer’s fitness to practice law). 
{¶ 4} The parties stipulate that the mitigating factors present include 
Hillis’s lack of a prior disciplinary record, his timely good-faith effort to rectify 
his misconduct by seeking treatment for his psychological issues, his cooperative 
attitude toward the disciplinary proceedings, his character and reputation, his 
diagnosis of mental-health issues, and the imposition of other penalties, including 
a 30-day suspended jail sentence, the payment of $400 in fines, a 90-day driver’s 
license suspension, and a sentence of 30 hours of community service.  See BCGD 
Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(a), (c), (d), (e), (f), and (g).  The parties do not note any 
aggravating factors.  Based upon these factors, the parties stipulate that the 
appropriate sanction for Hillis’s misconduct is a six-month suspension from the 
practice of law with the entire suspension stayed. 
{¶ 5} The panel and board found that the consent-to-discipline 
agreement conforms to BCGD Proc.Reg. 11 and recommend that we adopt the 
agreement in its entirety. 
{¶ 6} We agree that Hillis violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(h) and, as stated in 
the parties’ agreement, that this conduct warrants a six-month suspension with the 
entire suspension stayed.  While the facts in this case are very similar to the facts 
in Richland Cty. Bar Assn. v. Brightbill, 56 Ohio St.3d 95, 564 N.E.2d 471 (1990) 
(a public reprimand was warranted for an assistant prosecuting attorney convicted 
January Term, 2014 
3 
 
of impersonating a police officer and soliciting sexual activity for hire), we agree 
with the parties that a greater sanction is warranted in this case due to Hillis’s 
position as an elected public official.  Therefore, we adopt the parties’ consent-to-
discipline agreement. 
{¶ 7} Accordingly, Scott Thomas Hillis is hereby suspended from the 
practice of law for six months, with the entire suspension stayed on the condition 
that he commit no further misconduct.  If Hillis fails to comply with the condition 
of the stay, the stay will be lifted, and Hillis will serve the entire six-month 
suspension.  Costs are taxed to Hillis. 
Judgment accordingly. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, KENNEDY, 
FRENCH, and O’NEILL, JJ., concur. 
____________________ 
Scott J. Drexel, Disciplinary Counsel, and Stacy Solochek Beckman, 
Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. 
Richard A. Cline, for respondent. 
_________________________