Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Hauck
129 Ohio St. 3d 209
Ohio2011Background
- Respondent John W. Hauck, admitted 1978, is an Ohio attorney suspended for misconduct.
- Relator Cincinnati Bar Association filed February 2010 charge for failure to keep client funds in a segregated IOLTA, failure to maintain records, commingling funds, and failing to notify clients about lack of malpractice insurance.
- Respondent commingled personal/business and client funds in a single account (ABC Company) from 2003–2009 to avoid bank charges, using checks that did not identify ABC Company as owner.
- He ceased carrying professional-liability insurance on April 1, 2009 and did not inform clients of uninsured status until February 2010.
- He issued a $2,800 check to a minor’s guardian in 2009, stopped payment, and later replenished the funds in June 2009 after a guardianship hearing.
- The Board and the Panel found violations of Prof.Cond.R. 1.15(a), 1.15(b), 1.4(c), and 8.4(c); the matter proceeded via stipulated facts; the Supreme Court imposed a 12-month suspension with six months stayed, and six months of monitored probation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Hauck violated trust and record-keeping rules | Hauck violated 1.15(a), 1.15(b); mismanaged client funds and records | Mitigation acknowledged but stipulations show violations | Yes, violations established |
| Whether dishonest conduct warrants suspension | Dishonest conduct supports suspension; actual harm not required | Mitigating factors warrant stayed suspension | Actual 12-month suspension with six months stayed |
| Appropriate sanction given aggravating/mitigating factors | Dishonesty plus misconduct justify suspension | Mitigating factors (no prior discipline, community service) mitigate | 12-month suspension with six months stayed and six months monitored probation |
| Whether stay conditions sufficient to prevent further misconduct | Monitoring required to ensure future compliance | Conditions adequate given past cooperation | Stay of six months conditioned on supervised probation; failure lifts stay |
| Costs allocation | Costs should be taxed to respondent | Not disputed in text | Costs taxed to respondent |
Key Cases Cited
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Rooney, 110 Ohio St.3d 349 (Ohio 2006) (dishonest conduct generally warrants an actual suspension)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Beeler, 105 Ohio St.3d 188 (Ohio 2005) (emphasizes seriousness of professional misconduct)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Fowerbaugh, 74 Ohio St.3d 187 (Ohio 1995) (discipline for misrepresentation and trust issues)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Broeren, 115 Ohio St.3d 473 (Ohio 2007) (context for process and sanctions in disciplinary cases)
- In re Ruffalo, 390 U.S. 544 (U.S. 1968) (due-process considerations in consent to stipulated facts)