Title: Dayton Bar Assn. v. Hunt

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as Dayton Bar Assn. v. Hunt, 127 Ohio St.3d 390, 2010-Ohio-6148.] 
 
 
DAYTON BAR ASSOCIATION v. HUNT. 
[Cite as Dayton Bar Assn. v. Hunt, 127 Ohio St.3d 390, 2010-Ohio-6148.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Failure to act with reasonable diligence and 
promptness in representing a client — Failure to keep the client 
reasonably informed — Failure to cooperate in investigation of 
misconduct — Six-month suspension. 
(No. 2010-1459 — Submitted September 28, 2010 — Decided 
December 21, 2010.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 09-065. 
__________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Kevin M. Hunt of Dayton, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0073405, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 2001.  
The Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline concluded that 
respondent engaged in professional misconduct and recommends that he be 
suspended from the practice of law for six months and that the cost of these 
proceedings be taxed to him. 
{¶ 2} We agree that respondent committed professional misconduct as 
found by the board and adopt its recommended sanction. 
Background 
{¶ 3} On August 14, 2009, relator, Dayton Bar Association, filed a three-
count complaint against respondent, alleging two violations of the Rules of 
Professional Conduct and a violation of the Supreme Court Rules for the 
Government of the Bar stemming from respondent’s failure to manage cases for, 
and communicate with, multiple clients and his refusal to cooperate with the 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
related disciplinary investigation.  The parties submitted the matter to a panel of 
the board on the admissions made by respondent in a proposed consent to 
discipline agreement, but the agreement was rejected by the panel.  The panel 
then proceeded to a hearing.  Prior to the hearing, relator dismissed Count Two of 
the complaint, and the panel then heard the evidence. 
{¶ 4} Following the hearing, the panel accepted the parties’ stipulations 
regarding findings of fact and conclusions of law.  However, the panel rejected 
the stipulated sanction of an 18-month suspension with the possibility of 
reinstatement after six months conditioned upon a favorable mental health 
evaluation.  Instead, the panel recommended a six-month suspension, noting that 
the evidence did not establish that respondent’s conduct was the result of a 
medical or psychological infirmity and that fact rendered the stipulated sanction 
inappropriate.  The board adopted the panel’s findings of fact, conclusions of law, 
and recommended sanction and further recommended that the cost of the 
proceedings be taxed to respondent.  Neither respondent nor relator has objected 
to the board’s recommendation. 
Misconduct 
Count One 
{¶ 5} Two clients hired respondent to represent them in a medical 
negligence lawsuit.  Respondent timely filed the complaint, but thereafter he 
failed to obtain an expert witness, respond to discovery, or respond to separate 
motions for summary judgment.  As a result, the case was dismissed.  Respondent 
did not notify his clients that their case had been dismissed, and he also failed to 
respond to their inquiries on several occasions throughout the lawsuit. 
{¶ 6} Respondent admitted to violating Prof.Cond.R. 1.3 (an attorney 
shall act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client) and 
1.4 (an attorney shall keep the client reasonably informed about the status of the 
January Term, 2010 
3 
 
matter).  We agree with the board that clear and convincing evidence supports 
these findings.  Thus, we adopt the recommendation of the board as to Count One. 
Count Three 
{¶ 7} After another client retained respondent in connection with a 
divorce proceeding, respondent failed to communicate with her and filed an 
answer to the complaint out of rule.  The client filed a grievance against him, and 
relator attempted to contact respondent to investigate the grievance.  However, 
respondent failed to cooperate with relator in the investigation of the grievance 
and ignored relator’s repeated attempts to contact him by telephone and by 
certified mail. 
{¶ 8} Respondent admitted to violating Gov.Bar. R. V(4)(G) (neglecting 
or refusing to assist in the investigation of a disciplinary matter).  We agree with 
the board that clear and convincing evidence supports this finding.  Thus, we 
adopt the recommendation of the board as to Count Three. 
Sanction 
{¶ 9} When imposing sanctions for attorney misconduct, we consider 
relevant factors, including the ethical duties that the attorney violated and 
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 our 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 committed 
multiple offenses and failed to cooperate in the disciplinary process.  BCGD 
Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(d) and (e).  In mitigation, the board found that respondent had 
no prior disciplinary record.  BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(a). 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
{¶ 11} Neither relator nor respondent has objected to the six-month 
suspension recommended by the board, and such a sanction is warranted based on 
respondent’s misconduct.  See, e.g., Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Marosan, 109 
Ohio St.3d 439, 2006-Ohio-2816, 848 N.E.2d 837 (six-month suspension 
appropriate for attorney’s misconduct, which included neglecting a case and 
failing to cooperate in the disciplinary investigation).  Thus, having reviewed the 
record, weighed the aggravating and mitigating factors, and considered the 
sanctions imposed for comparable conduct, we adopt the board’s findings of fact 
and conclusions of law and its recommended sanction of a six-month suspension. 
{¶ 12} Accordingly, we suspend Kevin M. Hunt from the practice of law 
for a period of six months.  Costs are taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
BROWN, 
C.J., 
and 
PFEIFER, 
LUNDBERG 
STRATTON, 
O’CONNOR, 
O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, and CUPP, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
Andrew C. Storar, for relator. 
Thomas J. Replogle, for respondent. 
______________________