Title: Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Hauck

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. Hauck, Slip Opinion No. 2011-Ohio-3281.] 
 
 
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-3281 
CINCINNATI BAR ASSOCIATION v. HAUCK. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Hauck,  
Slip Opinion No. 2011-Ohio-3281.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Failure to maintain client funds in segregated 
account — Failure to maintain records of client funds — Failure to 
maintain professional liability insurance  — One year suspension, with 
six-months stayed. 
(No. 2011-0023 — Submitted March 23, 2011 — Decided July 7, 2011.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 10-022. 
__________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, John W. Hauck of Cincinnati, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0023153, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1978.  In 
February 2010, relator, Cincinnati Bar Association, filed a complaint charging 
respondent with failing to maintain client funds in a separate, interest bearing trust 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
account, failing to maintain adequate records of client funds in his possession, 
comingling client funds with his own, and failing to notify his clients that he did 
not carry malpractice insurance. 
{¶ 2} The parties have submitted stipulations of fact and misconduct, and 
a panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline conducted a 
hearing to determine the appropriate sanction for respondent’s misconduct.  The 
panel and board adopted the stipulated findings of fact and misconduct.  While the 
panel recommended that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for 12 
months with six months stayed on conditions, the board, citing extraordinary 
evidence of mitigation, recommended that the entire 12-month suspension be 
stayed.  Because respondent has stipulated to misconduct involving dishonesty, 
fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation, we conclude that an actual suspension is 
warranted.  Accordingly, we suspend respondent from the practice of law for 12 
months, with six months stayed on conditions. 
Misconduct 
{¶ 3} In February 2009, respondent issued a $2,800 check from a 
National City Bank account to the guardian of a minor, representing the proceeds 
of the minor’s personal injury claim.  At the end of March 2009, after discovering 
that the guardian had not negotiated the check, respondent directed the bank to 
stop payment. At a guardianship hearing before the probate court, respondent 
advised the magistrate that there may have been comingling in the account, and 
that because the account balance had dropped below $2,800, he would need time 
to replenish the account and reissue the check.  He did not remit the funds to the 
guardian until June 2009. 
{¶ 4} Beginning in 2003 and continuing through 2009, respondent 
commingled his personal and business funds with client funds in a single National 
City Bank account to avoid overdraft charges on his personal and business 
January Term, 2011 
3 
 
accounts.  While comingling these funds, respondent failed to maintain adequate 
records of client funds in his possession. 
{¶ 5} The National City Bank account that respondent used is registered 
to “ABC Company,” a non-profit entity that he had formed.  The checks that he 
issued from that account, however, were deceptive, because they did not identify 
ABC Company as the owner of the account.  Instead, they bore respondent’s 
name followed by “Attorney at Law,” and “IOLTA,” giving the false impression 
that the checks were drawn on his client trust account. 
{¶ 6} Respondent testified that one of the reasons he used the ABC 
Company account was to avoid tax garnishments by the Internal Revenue Service 
for income taxes and employment taxes that he owed.  Although he admitted that 
he had had issues with the Internal Revenue Service in the 1980’s and 
early1990’s, he claimed that he was not aware of any pending IRS issues. 
{¶ 7} In addition to respondent’s banking irregularities, the parties have 
stipulated that respondent ceased to carry professional malpractice insurance as of 
April 1, 2009.  They have also stipulated that he did not begin informing his 
clients about his uninsured status until sometime in February 2010. 
{¶ 8} Based on these facts, the parties have stipulated, the panel and 
board have found, and we agree that respondent has violated Prof.Cond. R. 
1.15(a) (requiring a lawyer to hold property of clients separate from the lawyer’s 
own property), 1.15(b) (permitting a lawyer to deposit his or her own funds in a 
client trust account for the sole purpose of paying or obtaining a waiver of bank 
service charges), 1.4(c) (requiring a lawyer to inform the client in a writing signed 
by the client if the lawyer does not maintain professional liability insurance), and 
8.4(c) (prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, 
fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation).1 
                                                 
1 Although relator’s complaint did not charge respondent with a violation of Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(c), 
we have previously recognized that a respondent’s review of and consent to stipulated facts and 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
Sanction 
{¶ 9} 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, 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} The panel and board found that respondent’s dishonest motive was 
an aggravating factor.  See BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(b).  As mitigating factors, 
the panel and board cited respondent’s lack of a prior disciplinary record, his full 
and free disclosure and a cooperative attitude toward the disciplinary proceeding, 
and the fact that no clients were harmed.  BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(a) and (d). 
{¶ 11} The panel and board also observed that respondent had submitted 
“compelling testimony” from Kathy King, a magistrate of the Hamilton County 
Domestic Relations Court, regarding his integrity and honesty.  The panel 
discounted this testimony in light of respondent’s admission that his use of the 
ABC Company checking account was deceitful, and recommended that 
respondent be suspended from the practice of law for 12 months with six months 
stayed on conditions.  The board, however,  gave greater weight to King’s 
testimony, which recounted respondent’s history of public service, beginning in 
law school and continuing throughout his 30 years of practice, including his 
participation in projects and investments designed to strengthen Cincinnati’s low 
                                                                                                                                     
the stipulated violations, and his agreed waiver of a hearing, satisfied the due process requirements 
of In re Ruffalo (1968), 390 U.S. 544, 550-551, 88 S.Ct. 1222, 1226, 20 L.Ed.2d 117, 122-123.  
See Disciplinary Counsel v. Jackson (1999), 86 Ohio St.3d 104, 105, 712 N.E.2d 122.  Here, 
respondent stipulated to the facts and violation and received a hearing.  
January Term, 2011 
5 
 
income community.  Therefore, the board recommended that respondent’s entire 
12-month suspension be stayed on conditions. 
{¶ 12} “[D]ishonest conduct on the part of an attorney generally warrants 
an actual suspension from the practice of law.”  Disciplinary Counsel v. Rooney, 
110 Ohio St.3d 349, 2006-Ohio-4576, 853 N.E.2d 663, ¶ 12, citing Disciplinary 
Counsel v. Beeler, 105 Ohio St.3d 188, 2005-Ohio-1143, 824 N.E.2d 78, ¶ 44, 
and Disciplinary Counsel v. Fowerbaugh (1995), 74 Ohio St.3d 187, 191, 658 
N.E.2d 237.  We acknowledge respondent’s extensive work with the poor, 
including his full-time volunteer work with the public defender’s office after he 
graduated from law school, the investment of his inherited wealth in the 
rehabilitation of buildings and social service agencies in the inner-city 
neighborhood of Over-the-Rhine, and his dedication to the poor and 
disadvantaged people of that area.  These good works, however, do not excuse 
respondent’s complete disregard of the Rules of Professional Conduct requiring 
attorneys to maintain client funds separate from their own and to maintain 
detailed records of all funds received on behalf of a client.  Nor do they 
compensate for his deceptive course of conduct that spanned more than five years. 
{¶ 13} Having considered respondent’s conduct, the aggravating and 
mitigating factors, and our precedent, we conclude that the appropriate sanction 
for respondent’s misconduct is a 12-month suspension, with six months stayed on 
the conditions that he serves six months of monitored probation in accordance 
with Gov.Bar. V(9) and that he commit no further misconduct. 
{¶ 14} Accordingly, we suspend respondent from the practice of law in 
Ohio for 12 months, with six months stayed on the conditions that he serve six 
months of supervised probation with a monitor appointed by relator in accordance 
with Gov.Bar R. V(9) and that he commit no further misconduct.  If respondent 
fails to comply with the conditions, the stay will be lifted, and he will serve the 
entire 12-month suspension.  Costs are taxed to respondent. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’DONNELL, 
LANZINGER, CUPP, and MCGEE BROWN, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
James K. Rice and Richard H. Johnson, for relator. 
John H. Burlew, for respondent. 
______________________