[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 

Dayton Bar Assn. v. Hooks, Slip Opinion No. 2014-Ohio-2596.] 

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-2596 

DAYTON BAR ASSOCIATION v. HOOKS. 

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, 

it may be cited as Dayton Bar Assn. v. Hooks, 

Slip Opinion No. 2014-Ohio-2596.] 

Attorneys—Misconduct—Failure to act with reasonable diligence—Failure to 

keep client reasonably informed about status of a matter—Six-month 

suspension, stayed on conditions. 

(No. 2013-1624—Submitted December 11, 2013—Decided June 19, 2014.) 

ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 

Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 2013-023. 

____________________ 

Per Curiam. 

{¶ 1} Respondent, Shawn Patrick Hooks of Dayton, Ohio, Attorney 

Registration No. 0079100, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 2005. 

{¶ 2} In April 2013, relator, Dayton Bar Association, filed a complaint 

alleging that Hooks had violated the Rules of Professional Conduct by neglecting 

a client’s legal matter, failing to reasonably communicate with the client, and 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

2 

failing to cooperate in the ensuing disciplinary investigation. A probable-cause 

panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline certified the 

complaint to the board, and the secretary of the board appointed a panel to hear 

the matter. 

{¶ 3} Hooks stipulated to the material facts of relator’s complaint and 

admitted that his conduct violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.3 (requiring a lawyer to act with 

reasonable diligence in representing a client), 1.4 (requiring a lawyer to 

reasonably communicate with a client), and 8.1(b) (prohibiting a lawyer from 

knowingly failing to respond to a demand for information by a disciplinary 

authority during an investigation). The panel made findings of fact and agreed 

that Hooks’s conduct violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.3 and 1.4. Based on Hooks’s 

testimony, however, the panel recommended that the alleged violation of 

Prof.Cond.R. 8.1 be dismissed. Citing just one aggravating factor and several 

mitigating factors, the panel recommended that Hooks be suspended from the 

practice of law for six months, all stayed on conditions. The board adopted the 

findings and recommendations of the panel. 

{¶ 4} We adopt the board’s findings of fact and misconduct and agree that 

a six-month suspension, stayed on conditions, is the appropriate sanction for 

Hooks’s misconduct. 

Misconduct 

{¶ 5} Michael Staup retained Hooks in October 2011 to seek modification 

of existing child-custody and child-support orders in Montgomery County, Ohio, 

because the child who was the subject of the orders had come to reside with him. 

{¶ 6} Because Staup lived in Tennessee, all contact he had with Hooks 

was by telephone, facsimile transmission, and e-mail. He sent Hooks the 

necessary paperwork and a retainer of $1,500 on November 14, 2011. In a 

conversation about ten days later, Hooks acknowledged receipt of the documents 

and retainer, requested copies of the child’s medical bills, and advised Staup that 
January Term, 2014 

3 

he would file the necessary pleadings after Thanksgiving. After the holiday, 

Staup attempted to reach Hooks a number of times by telephone and e-mail. And 

in early January 2012, Hooks told him that he was attending to the matter. 

{¶ 7} Staup constantly called and left messages for Hooks after that 

because he had heard nothing and continued to pay $291 in child support each 

month for the child who was then living with him. Having received no response, 

he eventually filed a grievance with relator. 

{¶ 8} In September 2012, relator contacted Hooks and requested a copy of 

Staup’s file. At that time, Hooks acknowledged that he represented Staup and 

promised to provide a copy of Staup’s file to relator. Despite several additional 

requests from relator, Hooks never provided a copy of the file. 

{¶ 9} Hooks admitted that by failing to file documents seeking to modify 

Staup’s custody and child-support obligations, he failed to act with reasonable 

diligence in violation of Prof.Cond.R. 1.3, that by failing to keep Staup 

reasonably informed as to the status of his legal matter he violated Prof.Cond.R. 

1.4, and that by failing to provide a copy of Staup’s file to relator on request he 

violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.1. The board agreed that his conduct violated 

Prof.Cond.R. 1.3 and 1.4. But it excused his failure to respond to the inquiry of 

the first investigator assigned to the matter who was later replaced—a magistrate 

who routinely presided over cases in which he appeared as an attorney—based on 

his belief that she would step down, necessitating the appointment of a new 

investigator. And although Hooks was unable to provide the file within the time 

constraints imposed by relator, the board believed that Hooks had made a goodfaith effort to locate and produce the Staup file, which had been misplaced. 

Therefore, the board recommended that the alleged violation of Prof.Cond.R. 8.1 

be dismissed. 

{¶ 10} We adopt these findings of fact and misconduct and dismiss the 

alleged violation of Prof.Cond.R. 8.1. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

4 

Sanction 

{¶ 11} 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 BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B). Disciplinary Counsel v. Broeren, 115 Ohio 

St.3d 473, 2007-Ohio-5251, 875 N.E.2d 935, ¶ 21. 

{¶ 12} The board found one aggravating factor—that Hooks committed 

multiple offenses—but noted that the offenses related to just one client and that 

there was no evidence of a pattern of misconduct. See BCGD Proc.Reg. 

10(B)(1)(d). As mitigating factors, the board found that Hooks does not have a 

prior disciplinary record, did not act with a dishonest or selfish motive, and has 

accepted responsibility for his misconduct. See BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(a) and 

(b). 

{¶ 13} Without making excuses for his misconduct, Hooks explained at 

the disciplinary hearing that at the time of his misconduct, he was working at a 

new firm with no support staff and was dealing with issues in a personal 

relationship. He reported that since Staup filed his grievance, he and his law 

partner had hired an assistant to ensure that client matters are handled promptly 

and to better manage their client files. Hooks also acknowledged that he had been 

charged with operating a vehicle while intoxicated in March 2011. He entered 

into and successfully completed a diversion program that included an evaluation 

for alcohol dependency, but reported that no follow-up care was required. Hooks 

stated at the disciplinary hearing that he had sent a check to Staup the previous 

week to refund Staup’s retainer. 

{¶ 14} The board recommends that Hooks be suspended from the practice 

of law for six months, all stayed on the conditions that he (1) complete 12 hours 
January Term, 2014 

5 

of continuing legal education in law-office management with instruction 

regarding office organization, time and task management, and basic software aids 

for case management, (2) submit to an evaluation by the Ohio Lawyers Assistance 

Program (“OLAP”) and enter into any follow-up contract deemed necessary by 

OLAP, (3) participate in a one-year mentoring program with a mentor approved 

by relator, and (4) commit no further misconduct. 

{¶ 15} In recommending this sanction, the board patterned its 

consideration upon our analysis in Allen Cty. Bar Assn. v. Brown, 124 Ohio St.3d 

530, 2010-Ohio-580, 925 N.E.2d 112. Brown had accepted retainers from two 

separate clients, but failed to perform the contracted work. Id. at ¶ 3. She 

repeatedly ignored her clients’ requests for information regarding the status of 

their cases and did not refund their retainers until they initiated disciplinary 

proceedings against her. Id. at ¶ 3-4. She attributed her misconduct to her 

disorganization and her tendency to avoid problems rather than address them—a 

response that the board believed signified a deeper problem, particularly in light 

of the fact that she had twice rejected offers from her local bar association to 

assist her with her practice difficulties. Id. at ¶ 5. 

{¶ 16} In determining that a one-year suspension, fully stayed on 

conditions, was the appropriate sanction for Brown’s misconduct, we considered 

four cases—one imposing a one-year stayed suspension and three imposing sixmonth stayed suspensions. Id. at ¶ 13-19. In Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Poole, 

120 Ohio St.3d 361, 2008-Ohio-6203, 899 N.E.2d 950, we imposed a one-year 

suspension, stayed on conditions, for an attorney’s neglect of two client matters, 

failure to reasonably communicate with clients, failure to refund their retainers 

until the clients initiated disciplinary proceedings, and failure to cooperate in the 

ensuing disciplinary investigation. In Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Norton, 116 Ohio 

St.3d 226, 2007-Ohio-6038, 877 N.E.2d 964, we imposed a six-month 

suspension, stayed on conditions, for a remorseful attorney’s neglect of two client 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

6 

matters, failure to reasonably communicate with clients, and failure to cooperate 

in disciplinary proceedings, upon a finding that his misconduct was due mainly to 

poor organizational skills. In Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Sherman, 101 Ohio 

St.3d 158, 2004-Ohio-340, 803 N.E.2d 398, we imposed a six-month stayed 

suspension for neglect of a single client matter, failure to reasonably communicate 

with the client, and failure to maintain client funds in a separate, identifiable bank 

account. And in Dayton Bar Assn. v. Sebree, 96 Ohio St.3d 50, 2002-Ohio-2987, 

770 N.E.2d 1009, we imposed a six-month stayed suspension for neglect and 

failure to communicate with two clients that was attributable to a busy practice, 

poor office procedures, and a lack of guidance. 

{¶ 17} Although Hooks’s misconduct affected just one client, while 

Brown, Poole, Norton, and Sebree each involved a pattern of misconduct 

affecting at least two clients, the conduct at issue here is comparable to the 

conduct in those cases. Therefore, we agree that a six-month suspension, all 

stayed on the conditions recommended by the board, is the appropriate sanction 

for his misconduct. 

{¶ 18} Accordingly, Shawn Patrick Hooks is suspended from the practice 

of law in Ohio for six months, all stayed on the conditions that he (1) complete 12 

hours of continuing legal education in law-office management with instruction 

regarding office organization, time and task management, and basic software aids 

for case management before expiration of the six-month suspension, (2) submit to 

an evaluation by OLAP within three months of the date of this order and enter 

into and comply with any follow-up contract deemed necessary by OLAP, (3) 

participate in a one-year mentoring program with a mentor approved by relator, 

and (4) commit no further misconduct. If Hooks fails to comply with these 

conditions, the stay will be lifted, and he will serve the entire six-month 

suspension. Costs are taxed to Hooks. 

Judgment accordingly. 
January Term, 2014 

7 

O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, KENNEDY,

FRENCH, and O’NEILL, JJ., concur. 

____________________ 

Dianne F. Marx, for relator. 

Shawn Patrick Hooks, pro se. 

_________________________