Title: Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Hennekes

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Hennekes, Slip Opinion No. 2012-Ohio-5689.] 
 
 
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-5689 
CINCINNATI BAR ASSOCIATION v. HENNEKES. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Hennekes, Slip Opinion No. 2012-
Ohio-5689.] 
(No. 2012-0991—Submitted August 22, 2012—Decided December 6, 2012.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No.  11-014. 
_______________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Jason Richard Hennekes of Cincinnati, Ohio, 
Attorney Registration No. 0075744, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 
2002.  In August, 2006, we suspended his license for two years after he was 
convicted of conspiracy to distribute and possession with intent to distribute 
cocaine, in violation of Section 846, Title 21 U.S.Code.  Hennekes was sentenced 
to 366 days in federal penitentiary and served approximately ten months before 
his release to a halfway house.  Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Hennekes, 110 Ohio St.3d 
108, 2006-Ohio-3669, 850 N.E.2d 1201.  We reinstated Hennekes’ license on 
September 17, 2008. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
{¶ 2} Hennekes is currently under suspension for failure to register with 
the Office of Attorney Services. In re Attorney Registration Suspension of 
Hennekes, 11/16/2011, Administrative Actions, 2011-Ohio-5890.  He is also 
currently under a CLE suspension.  11/13/2012 Administrative Actions, 2012-
Ohio-5238. 
{¶ 3} On November 14, 2011, relator Cincinnati Bar Association (CBA) 
attempted to reach Hennekes regarding a grievance filed by Judge Robert 
Ruehlman, by sending letters to Hennekes’s last known home address and to his 
parents’ address. 
{¶ 4} On February 13, 2012, relator filed a complaint with the Board of 
Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline.  Hennekes was served with the 
complaint and given notice that he was to respond within twenty days of February 
16, 2012. Notice was served by certified mail delivered on February 14, 2012. 
{¶ 5} On April 17, 2012, relator sent Hennekes a letter reminding him 
that he had not filed an answer to the complaint by the due date.  Relator informed 
Hennekes that this was to be the final effort to contact him, and that the Board had 
instructed relator to file a default motion against him. Having received no 
response from Hennekes, relator moved for an entry of default. 
{¶ 6} A master commissioner appointed by the Board of Commissioners 
on Grievances and Discipline prepared a report regarding relator’s motion for 
default.  The master commissioner found by clear and convincing evidence that 
Hennekes had committed several violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct.  
He found the relator’s recommended sanction of disbarment too severe and 
recommended that Hennekes be indefinitely suspended. The board adopted the 
master commissioner’s findings of fact and conclusions of law, but amended the 
sanction to recommend that Hennekes be permanently disbarred.  We adopt the 
board’s report and permanently disbar Hennekes. 
 
 
January Term, 2012 
 
3
 
Misconduct 
Count One—Gibson Grievance 
{¶ 7} Hennekes agreed to represent Crystal Gibson in a criminal case on 
October 2, 2011, and she paid him $500 at that time.  Hennekes assured Gibson 
that he would appear on her behalf at the arraignment, scheduled for October 6, 
and that she would not need to attend as he would file a written not guilty plea. 
{¶ 8} Hennekes failed to attend the hearing and the court issued a 
warrant for Gibson’s arrest. 
{¶ 9} Gibson tried to get in contact with Hennekes, but he did not 
respond for several days.  When he did respond, Hennekes told Gibson that he 
could not find her records at the Hamilton County Clerk of Courts.  Gibson stated 
that her records were available online by September 30, 2011, several days before 
the hearing. 
{¶ 10} On October 11, 2011, Gibson sent Hennekes a letter by certified 
mail, dismissing him from the case and requesting a refund of the $500 she paid 
him, as well as an itemized bill for any portion Hennekes claimed to have earned.  
Hennekes did not reply. 
{¶ 11} The master commissioner found by clear and convincing evidence 
that Hennekes’s conduct with regard to Gibson violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.1 
(requiring a lawyer to provide competent representation to a client); Prof.Cond.R. 
1.3 (requiring a lawyer to act with reasonable diligence in representing a client); 
Prof.Cond.R. 1.5 (prohibiting a lawyer from making an agreement for, charging, 
or collecting an illegal or clearly excessive fee); Prof.Cond.R. 1.15(d) (requiring a 
lawyer to promptly deliver funds or other property that the client is entitled to 
receive; requiring a lawyer, upon request by a client, to promptly render a full 
accounting of funds or property in which a client has an interest). 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
{¶ 12} The board agreed and adopted the master commissioner’s findings 
of fact and conclusions of law with regard to the Gibson matter.  We concur. 
Count Two—Lacey Grievance. 
{¶ 13} On October 24, 2011, Hennekes was scheduled to represent Barton 
Lacey at his criminal trial before Hamilton County Common Pleas Judge Robert 
P. Ruehlman.  Lacey was the defendant in three felony charges.  Hennekes failed 
to appear for the trial.  The transcript of proceedings shows that Lacey and the 
police witnesses were in attendance.  Lacey was being held in jail and his cases 
had been set numerous times, but Hennekes had not appeared.  Lacey stated that 
he had paid Hennekes to represent him, but had had little contact with him since. 
{¶ 14} Laura Noth, Judge Ruehlman’s bailiff, called Hennekes on the 
telephone the morning of October 24 to remind him of the trial.  Noth states that 
Hennekes responded “What?” and hung up the phone.  Noth attempted to call him 
back six or seven times, but Hennekes allowed the calls to go to voicemail and did 
not call back. 
{¶ 15} Judge Ruehlman also stated that he was aware of Hennekes’s prior 
drug conviction and also that Hennekes had had “problems around the courthouse 
of not showing up.”  He speculated that Hennekes had a substance abuse problem 
and that he may have relapsed.  Judge Ruehlman stated that he would no longer 
permit Hennekes to practice in his courtroom, and continued the trial to allow 
Lacey to get a new lawyer. 
{¶ 16} The master commissioner found by clear and convincing evidence 
that Henneke’s conduct with regard to Lacey violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.1; 
Prof.Cond.R. 1.3; Prof.Cond.R. 1.5 and Prof.Cond.R. 3.5(a)(6) (prohibiting a 
lawyer from engaging in undignified or discourteous conduct that is degrading to 
a tribunal). 
{¶ 17} The board agreed and adopted the master commissioner’s findings 
of fact and conclusions of law with regard to the Lacey matter.  We concur. 
January Term, 2012 
 
5
Sanction 
{¶ 18} When imposing sanctions for attorney misconduct, we consider 
relevant factors, including the ethical duties that 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.  In making a final 
determination on sanctions, 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. 
{¶ 19} In Hennekes’s previous disciplinary matter, Cincinnati Bar Assn. 
v. Hennekes, 110 Ohio St.3d 108, 2006-Ohio-3669, 850 N.E.2d 1201, we 
suspended him from the practice of law for two years after he was convicted in 
federal court of conspiracy to distribute and possession with intent to distribute 
cocaine.  Id. at ¶ 3.  In that case we found that in the past, attorneys have been 
disbarred for similar conduct.  Id. at ¶ 14.  However, we declined to disbar 
Hennekes and instead imposed a two-year suspension.  Mitigating factors in that 
case were that Hennekes had paid or was paying the criminal penalty, and did not 
use narcotics or have other substance abuse problems. Id. at ¶ 9.  At that time, 
Hennekes had no prior discipline, had a good reputation, had cooperated with the 
investigation, and did not benefit financially from the conspiracy.  Id. 
{¶ 20} In contrast here, the record does not contain evidence of any 
mitigating factors.  Aggravating factors, however, include at least four of the nine 
factors set forth in BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B).  Specifically, Hennekes has a prior 
disciplinary offense, has committed multiple offenses, did not cooperate in the 
disciplinary process, and has failed to make restitution.  See BCGD Proc.Reg. 
10(B)(a), (d), (e), and (i). 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
 
{¶ 21} Relator recommended that Hennekes be permanently disbarred 
from the practice of law in Ohio.  The master commissioner noted that we have 
frequently held that the presumptive sanction for neglect of legal matters is 
indefinite suspension, citing Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn. v. Kaplan, 124 Ohio 
St.3d 278, 210-Ohio-167.  The master commissioner also pointed out that we 
have found that taking retainers and failing to perform services is tantamount to 
theft of the fee from the client, and therefore the presumptive sanction is 
permanent disbarment.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Horan, 123 Ohio St.3d 60, 2009-
Ohio-4177.  “Without trivializing the seriousness of [Hennekes’] conduct * * *,” 
the master commissioner found permanent disbarment too severe a sanction and 
recommended that Hennekes be indefinitely suspended. 
{¶ 22} The board adopted the master commissioner’s findings of fact and 
conclusions of law, but amended the sanction, to recommend that Hennekes be 
permanently disbarred. 
{¶ 23} We agree.  Disbarment is the appropriate sanction for Hennekes’s 
misconduct because he not only had a previous serious disciplinary offense—for 
which he could have been disbarred at that time—but because he also took his 
clients’ money, failed to render any services to clients, failed to return the clients’ 
money and failed to cooperate in the disciplinary investigation.  See, Columbus 
Bar Assn. v. Moushey, 104 Ohio St.3d 427, 2004-Ohio-6897, 819 N.E.2d 1112. 
{¶ 24} Accordingly, Jason Richard Hennekes is disbarred in Ohio, and he 
is further ordered to make restitution of $500 to Crystal Gibson within 30 days of 
the date of the order in this case and to make restitution to the Client Security 
Fund within 90 days of any award by the Client Security Fund for any amount 
applied for and paid to Barton Lacey with regard to Hennekes’ representation of 
Lacey.  Costs are taxed to Hennekes. 
Judgment accordingly. 
January Term, 2012 
 
7
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’DONNELL, 
LANZINGER, CUPP, and MCGEE BROWN, JJ., concur. 
_________________________ 
Ernest F. McAdams, Jr.  and Edwin Patterson III, for relator. 
_________________________