Disciplinary Counsel v. Hall

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as Disciplinary Counsel v. Hall, Slip Opinion No. 2012-Ohio-783.] 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-783 DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. HALL. [Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as Disciplinary Counsel v. Hall, Slip Opinion No. 2012-Ohio-783.] Attorneys Misconduct Multiple violations of Rules of Professional Conduct, including failing to act with reasonable diligence in representing a client and failing to keep a client reasonably informed about the status of a matter Two-year suspension with six months stayed on conditions. (No. 2011-1017 Submitted August 8, 2011 Decided March 1, 2012.) ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 10-042. __________________ Per Curiam. {¶ 1} Respondent, Eric D. Hall of Medina, Ohio, Attorney Registration No. 0067566, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1997. {¶ 2} On November 29, 2010, relator, disciplinary counsel, filed an amended complaint with the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and SUPREME COURT OF OHIO Discipline alleging 13 counts of misconduct. Relying on the parties joint stipulation of facts and violations, as well as testimony at a formal hearing, the board made findings of fact and misconduct and recommended that respondent pay restitution and be suspended from the practice of law for 24 months with 6 months stayed. We adopt the board s findings of facts and misconduct and accept its recommended sanction. Misconduct {¶ 3} The complaint before the board alleged 13 counts of misconduct. The board, in accordance with the parties stipulation, found that four of them had not been proved by clear and convincing evidence and dismissed them. {¶ 4} In all the remaining counts, Hall agreed to represent clients but then failed to perform the agreed-upon work or to respond to his clients efforts to reach him. In all but one of the counts, Hall had accepted retainers from the clients, although he has refunded one retainer. And in one of the counts, Hall added to his misconduct by misrepresenting to a client that he had filed a complaint in court. {¶ 5} The board concluded that the conduct described above resulted in violations of Prof.Cond.R. 1.3, 1.4(a)(3), 1.4(a)(4), 1.16(e), 8.4(c), and 8.4(h). Some of Hall s misconduct occurred while the Code of Professional Responsibility remained in effect; as to this conduct, the board found that Hall had violated DR 1-102(A)(6). {¶ 6} We adopt the board s findings. Sanction {¶ 7} When imposing sanctions for attorney misconduct, we consider relevant factors, including the duties the lawyer violated, the lawyer s mental state, 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 a final determination, we also weigh evidence of the aggravating and mitigating factors 2 January Term, 2012 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. Because each disciplinary case is unique, we are not limited to the factors specified in the rule but may take into account all relevant factors in determining what sanction to impose. BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B). {¶ 8} As aggravating factors, the parties stipulated and the board found that Hall had demonstrated a pattern of misconduct, committed multiple offenses, and harmed his victims. See BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(c), (d), and (h). {¶ 9} As to mitigating factors, the parties stipulated and the board found that respondent lacked a prior disciplinary record, lacked a dishonest or selfish motive, had displayed a generally cooperative attitude toward the disciplinary proceedings, and had presented evidence of good character and reputation. See BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(a), (b), (d), and (e). {¶ 10} The board, in agreement with the parties stipulation, recommended that Hall be suspended from the practice of law for 24 months with 6 months stayed, followed by a one-year probation. It further recommended that reinstatement be conditioned on Hall s payment of full restitution to his clients and of the costs of these proceedings. {¶ 11} We adopt the board s recommended sanction, which is appropriate in this case. See, e.g., Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn. v. Gresley, 127 Ohio St.3d 430, 2010-Ohio-6208, 940 N.E.2d 945 (imposing two-year suspension with six months conditionally stayed when attorney neglected client matters and failed to respond to client communications); Columbus Bar Assn. v. Ellis, 120 Ohio St.3d 89, 2008-Ohio-5278, 896 N.E.2d 703 (imposing two-year suspension when attorney accepted fees, neglected client matters, and deceived clients). The record, the balance of aggravating and mitigating factors, and precedent all support the board s recommendation. 3 SUPREME COURT OF OHIO {¶ 12} Accordingly, Eric D. Hall is suspended from the practice of law in the state of Ohio for 24 months with 6 months stayed, followed by a one-year probation. Reinstatement is conditioned on the payment of restitution as follows: $1,500 to Tami Beckwith; $2,500 to Mike Henry; $700 to Stanley Fossett; $1,200 to Lisa Linton; $1,000 to Nicholas Lorence; $2,500 to Debra Hetman; and $2,500 to Nelson Corporan. Costs are taxed to respondent. Judgment accordingly. O CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O DONNELL, LANZINGER, CUPP, and MCGEE BROWN, JJ., concur. __________________ Jonathan E. Coughlan, Disciplinary Counsel, and Joseph Caligiuri, Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. Christopher J. Weber, for respondent. ______________________ 4

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.