Cincinnati Bar Association v. Hauck, 148 Ohio St. 3d 203

John W. Hauck, admitted 1978, previously disciplined and reinstated; charged by Cincinnati Bar Assn. for misconduct arising from assistance to Richard Ellison.
Ellison was subject to a civil protection order (CPO) prohibiting any contact with his parents; Ellison drafted a reconciliation letter and asked to use Hauck’s name/letterhead to send it.
Hauck edited the letter, had specially designed letterhead showing him as “ATTORNEY AT LAW,” signed the letter (with a disclaimer claiming he was writing as a friend), and returned it for Ellison to mail.
Ellison mailed the letter, was arrested for violating the CPO, pled guilty to attempt to violate the CPO, and served jail time; Hauck visited and communicated with Ellison in jail and wrote letters to the arresting officer.
The Board found Hauck formed an attorney–client relationship with Ellison, reviewed the CPO, and nonetheless assisted in drafting/sending the letter, violating multiple Rules of Professional Conduct (competence, illegal conduct, dishonesty/deceit, prejudicial conduct, practicing while unregistered).
The Supreme Court adopted the board’s factual findings but modified the sanction: a two-year suspension with the second year stayed on conditions (OLAP evaluation/compliance, monitored probation, restitution, petition for reinstatement).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Hauck established an attorney-client relationship with Ellison	Board: Hauck provided legal advice, used letterhead, Ellison relied on him	Hauck: acted only as a friend; disclaimer; no legal services rendered	Court: Board credibility findings upheld; implied attorney-client relationship existed
Whether Hauck committed an illegal act by aiding violation of the CPO (Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(b))	Board: Hauck reviewed the CPO and still assisted; conduct aided illegal violation	Hauck: lacked knowledge of specific CPO terms; no personal notice -> cannot be bound	Court: evidence supports that Hauck reviewed and knew CPO prohibitions; violation sustained
Whether Hauck’s challenge to the CPO’s constitutionality defeats discipline	Hauck: CPO unconstitutional; thus cannot ground misconduct	Relator: validity of CPO irrelevant to disciplinary findings when not challenged earlier	Court: collateral attack rejected; obedience to valid court orders required; discipline stands
Appropriate sanction for misconduct	Relator: 12-month suspension + counseling, reinstatement petition	Hauck: argued for leniency based on motives and religious beliefs	Court: imposed 2-year suspension with second year stayed on conditions, OLAP, monitored probation, restitution, and reinstatement petition

Disciplinary Counsel v. Heiland, 116 Ohio St.3d 521, 2008-Ohio-91, 880 N.E.2d 467 (deference to panel credibility unless record heavily weighs otherwise)
Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Statzer, 101 Ohio St.3d 14, 2003-Ohio-6649, 800 N.E.2d 1117 (same standard of review for credibility in disciplinary cases)
Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Hardiman, 100 Ohio St.3d 260, 2003-Ohio-5596, 798 N.E.2d 369 (attorney-client relationship may be implied by conduct and reasonable expectations)
Lorain Cty. Bar Assn. v. Zubaidah, 140 Ohio St.3d 495, 2014-Ohio-4060, 20 N.E.3d 687 (distinguishing nonlegal advice vs. conduct that constitutes practice of law)
Midland Steel Prods. Co. v. Internatl. Union, 61 Ohio St.3d 121, 573 N.E.2d 98 (limitations on binding nonparties by court orders require actual notice)
State ex rel. Beil v. Dota, 168 Ohio St. 315, 154 N.E.2d 634 (orders of a court with jurisdiction must be obeyed until set aside)
Ohio Pyro, Inc. v. Ohio Dept. of Commerce, 115 Ohio St.3d 375, 2007-Ohio-5024, 875 N.E.2d 550 (collateral attack principles on judgments/orders)
Akron Bar Assn. v. Markovich, 117 Ohio St.3d 313, 2008-Ohio-862, 883 N.E.2d 1046 (suspension precedent for misconduct involving CPO violations and other offenses)
Stark Cty. Bar Assn. v. Osborne, 62 Ohio St.3d 77, 578 N.E.2d 455 (one-year suspension for assisting client in deliberate violation of court order)