Cincinnati Bar Association v. Hoskins
77 N.E.3d 899
Ohio2016Background
- Robert H. Hoskins, Ohio attorney ( admitted 1997), was charged by the Cincinnati Bar Association in a seven-count disciplinary complaint alleging multiple ethics violations spanning incompetence, neglect, dishonesty, improper fee-sharing, trust-account failures, false registration, and failure to cooperate.
- During these proceedings Kentucky courts suspended Hoskins for 60 days; Ohio imposed reciprocal 60-day suspension earlier, still in effect.
- Board hearings (July 2014 and Feb 2015) produced findings that Hoskins committed numerous violations across matters involving bankruptcy (Kraus), divorce/QDROs (Amer), a garnishment (Loury), fee-sharing with Citizens Disability, unpaid client refunds and trust-account lapses (Games), false attorney-registration (firm dissolved but not updated), and a personal-injury client (Long) including failure to turn over file and false statements to disciplinary counsel.
- The board found aggravating factors: prior discipline, multiple offenses, deceptive conduct during the proceedings, failure to cooperate, and delayed restitution; it found no mitigating factors.
- The board recommended indefinite suspension conditioned on CLE in law-office management, passing the MPRE, and payment of costs. The Supreme Court of Ohio adopted the board’s findings and imposed an indefinite suspension with those conditions; three justices would have disbarred.
Issues
| Issue | Cincinnati Bar Assn.'s Argument | Hoskins' Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Competence and communication in Kraus bankruptcy | Filed deficient Chapter 11/13 petitions; failed to advise client and obtain consent to withdraw motion; violated 1.1 and 1.4 | Claimed imprudence but asserted client consent to withdrawing the reopen motion | Court adopted board: violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.1, 1.4(a)(1),(3), and 1.4(b); dismissed some related counts for insufficient evidence |
| Neglect and communication in family/dissolution matters (Amer, Games) | Failed to prepare QDROs, neglected representation, failed to provide accounting/refund; violated 1.3, 1.4, 1.15 | Admitted delays and poor communication but sought to justify referral to more experienced counsel; acknowledged failure to withdraw properly | Court adopted board: violations of 1.3, 1.4(a)(2)-(4), 1.4(b), and 1.15(a),(c),(d) as charged; dismissed 8.4(d) allegations |
| Dishonesty and failure to cooperate (Loury, Long, disciplinary inquiries) | Made misrepresentations about substitute counsel and about producing client file; falsely responded to disciplinary requests; violated 8.4(c), 8.1(a),(b) | Denied some specifics but did not effectively rebut testimony/evidence; disputed some findings | Court adopted board: violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(c), 8.1(a), 8.1(b); dismissed some related claims for insufficiency |
| Fee sharing with nonlawyer and registration misstatements | Contracted to share contingency fees with Citizens Disability (non-registered nonlawyer-referral service), paid improper referral fees; failed to update firm registration and misrepresented firm status | Argued Citizens Disability was run by an attorney and provided permissible services; claimed fees were justified | Court adopted board: violated Prof.Cond.R. 5.4(a) and 7.2(b)(3); also violated 7.1 and 7.5(d) for false/misleading registration statements |
Key Cases Cited
- Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn. v. Pryatel, 135 Ohio St.3d 410, 2013-Ohio-1537, 988 N.E.2d 541 (indefinite suspension for combined incompetence, neglect, dishonesty, trust-account and fee violations)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Lord, 111 Ohio St.3d 131, 2006-Ohio-5341, 855 N.E.2d 457 (indefinite suspension for neglect, failure to cooperate, and related misconduct)
- Kentucky Bar Assn. v. Hoskins, 454 S.W.3d 289 (Ky.2015) (60-day suspension in Kentucky, reciprocally considered)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Hoskins, 142 Ohio St.3d 1244, 2015-Ohio-1532, 30 N.E.3d 964 (Ohio reciprocal 60-day suspension previously imposed)