[Cite as Toledo Bar Assn. v. Hickman, 107 Ohio St.3d 296, 2005-Ohio-6513.]

TOLEDO BAR ASSOCIATION v. HICKMAN. 

[Cite as Toledo Bar Assn. v. Hickman, 

107 Ohio St.3d 296, 2005-Ohio-6513.] 

Attorneys — Misconduct — Neglecting an entrusted legal matter — Engaging in 

conduct involving fraud, deceit, dishonesty, or misrepresentation — 

Intentionally failing to carry out contract of professional employment — 

One-year suspension, six months stayed. 

(No. 2005-1167 — Submitted August 23, 2005 — Decided December 28, 2005.) 

ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 

Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 04-061. 

__________________ 

Per Curiam. 

{¶ 1} Respondent, Gregg D. Hickman of Toledo, Ohio, Attorney 

Registration No. 0020032, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1978. 

On October 11, 2004, relator, Toledo Bar Association, charged respondent in a 

four-count complaint with having violated the Code of Professional 

Responsibility. A panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 

Discipline heard the cause and made findings of fact, conclusions of law, and a 

recommendation, which the board adopted. 

Misconduct 

{¶ 2} Relator dismissed Counts III and IV of the complaint, and 

respondent stipulated or testified to the allegations of Counts I and II. 

Count I 

{¶ 3} In 1997, Denise and Richard Myrice Sr. retained respondent to file 

a lawsuit against certain medical providers for causing the death of their adult son, 

Chad. Respondent entered into a contingent-fee agreement with the Myrices; 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

2 

however, he failed to reduce the agreement to writing in accordance with R.C. 

4705.15. 

{¶ 4} As preparation for a wrongful-death action, respondent opened the 

estate of Chad Myrice in the Lucas County Probate Court; however, he did not 

file a complaint, and the statute of limitations for the action expired, barring any 

relief. Notwithstanding this, respondent represented to the Myrices that he had 

filed the wrongful-death claim in court and that medical experts were in the 

process of reviewing the allegations of liability. This representation was also 

untrue. Respondent never provided any medical records or other materials in the 

case to a medical expert for review. In fact, opening the estate was the only 

action respondent took on behalf of his clients, and in May 2000, the probate 

court closed the estate for respondent’s failure to file an accounting. 

{¶ 5} In October 2003, the Myrices retained other counsel. The new 

attorney discovered that the wrongful-death action had not been filed and that 

their son’s estate had been closed three years earlier. Notwithstanding these facts, 

respondent continued to falsely assure the Myrices that the estate was open and 

that the wrongful-death action was pending. 

Count II

{¶ 6} In 1996, prior to Chad’s death, respondent agreed to pursue a 

personal-injury action on behalf of Chad and others who had been injured in a 

bar. Respondent also did not reduce the contingent-fee agreement to writing for 

this representation as required by R.C. 4705.15. 

{¶ 7} Respondent filed the personal-injury claim in the Lucas County 

Court of Common Pleas; however, he voluntarily dismissed the cause as to Chad 

in August 1997. Respondent later settled the claims of the others injured at the 

bar, but he never refiled any claim for relief concerning Chad’s injury. 

{¶ 8} The Myrices did not consent to the dismissal of Chad’s claim, and 

when asked about the case, respondent falsely represented to the Myrices that the 
January Term, 2005 

3

personal-injury action was still pending and that the estate of Chad Myrice was 

still open. Respondent also falsely told the Myrices that the defendant had agreed 

to a $1,000 settlement that respondent was having trouble collecting. 

{¶ 9} In accordance with the evidence and the parties’ stipulations of 

misconduct, the panel and board found violations of DR 1-102(A)(4) (prohibiting 

conduct involving fraud, deceit, dishonesty, or misrepresentation), 6-101(A)(3) 

(prohibiting the neglect of an entrusted legal matter), and 7-101(A)(2) 

(prohibiting the intentional failure to carry out a contract of employment for 

professional services). 

Sanction 

{¶ 10} In recommending a sanction for this misconduct, the panel and 

board reviewed the mitigating and aggravating factors of respondent’s case. See 

Section 10 of the Rules and Regulations Governing Procedure on Complaints and 

Hearings Before the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline 

(“BCGD Proc.Reg.”). As mitigating features, the panel and board found that 

respondent had been in practice for over 25 years with no prior disciplinary 

offenses. BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(a). Respondent had also cooperated in the 

disciplinary proceedings and expressed remorse for his misconduct. BCGD 

Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(d). He explained that he had been a sole practitioner since 

1991, working mainly in domestic relations and criminal defense, and was not 

familiar with medical-malpractice cases. Conceding that he should not have taken 

on the Myrice case, respondent promised to refer such cases in the future. He also 

advised that he had recently become associated with another veteran attorney who 

had least 20 years of experience in domestic-relations, criminal, and bankruptcy 

cases. 

{¶ 11} Also in mitigation, respondent submitted letters from two judges, a 

magistrate, and four attorneys commending his character, reputation, competence, 

and professionalism. As one example, Judge Thomas J. Osowik of the Lucas 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

4 

County Common Pleas Court wrote that in the 14 years respondent had been 

appearing in his courtroom, respondent had always demonstrated “impeccable 

character” and was consistently a very well-prepared advocate. Judge Osowik 

added that respondent “often represents difficult clients who bring with them 

difficult and complex problems.” Further, respondent acknowledged the 

wrongfulness of his neglect and dishonesty. 

{¶ 12} Against these factors, the panel and board weighed the aggravating 

effect of respondent’s having intentionally misled the Myrices, whom he had 

represented for years, to placate them and conceal his inaction. BCGD Proc.Reg. 

10(A)(2)(b). Moreover, respondent had caused this couple irreparable harm — 

they lost two cases to statutes of limitation, barring both the medical-malpractice 

claim in Count I and the personal-injury claim in Count II. BCGD Proc.Reg. 

10(B)(1)(h). The Myrices, however, have apparently received at least some 

compensation through a malpractice-insurance settlement against respondent. 

{¶ 13} The parties jointly proposed that respondent be suspended from the 

practice of law for one year with six months stayed. Respondent’s counsel 

acknowledged that respondent’s case is similar to Disciplinary Counsel v. 

Fowerbaugh (1995), 74 Ohio St.3d 187, 658 N.E.2d 237, and that his violation of 

DR 1-102(A)(4) required an actual suspension absent significant extenuating or 

unusual circumstances. Id. The panel and board recommended the one-year 

suspension with a six-month stay. 

Review 

{¶ 14} We agree that respondent violated DR 1-102(A)(4), 6-101(A)(3), 

and 7-101(A)(2) as found by the board. We also find appropriate the one-year 

suspension with a six-month stay. 

{¶ 15} Accordingly, respondent is suspended from the practice of law in 

Ohio for one year; however, six months of this suspension are stayed on the 

condition that he does not commit further misconduct during the suspension 
January Term, 2005 

5

period. If respondent violates the terms of the stay, the stay will be lifted, and 

respondent shall serve the entire one-year suspension. Costs are taxed to 

respondent. 

Judgment accordingly. 

 MOYER, C.J., RESNICK, PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’CONNOR and 

O’DONNELL, JJ., concur. 

 LANZINGER, J., not participating. 

__________________ 

 David F. Cooper and Michael F. Jilek Sr., for relator. 

 James D. Caruso, for respondent. 

______________________