Dayton Bar Assn. v. Hunt, 127 Ohio St. 3d 390

Dayton Bar Association filed a three-count complaint against Kevin M. Hunt alleging two misconduct violations and a government bar rule violation in August 2009.
Panel proceedings followed a proposed consent to discipline; Count Two was dismissed; a hearing proceeded with admitted facts.
The Board found Hunt committed misconduct and recommended a six-month suspension and taxed costs, which the Supreme Court adopted.
Count One: Hunt represented two medical-malpractice clients, filed suit timely, but failed to obtain an expert, respond to discovery, or respond to motions, resulting in dismissal without notice to clients.
Count Three: Hunt, in a divorce matter, failed to communicate, filed an answer out of rule, and refused to cooperate with disciplinary investigators after grievance was filed.
The Court considered aggravating factors (multiple offenses, lack of cooperation) and mitigating factor (no prior disciplinary record) and imposed a six-month suspension.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did Hunt's neglect and poor communication violate professional rules?	Hunt violated 1.3 and 1.4.	Hunt admitted the findings; panel adopted them.	Yes; violations established.
Did Hunt's failure to cooperate with disciplinary investigation breach governing rules?	Violation of Gov.Bar. R. V(4)(G).	Hunt admitted the conduct.	Yes; violation established.
Is a six-month suspension warranted given the misconduct and aggravating/mitigating factors?	Board's recommended sanction six months.	No contrary argument presented; same recommended sanction.	Six-month suspension appropriate.

Stark Cty. Bar Assn. v. Buttacavoli, 96 Ohio St.3d 424 (2002-Ohio-4743) (six-month suspension for similar misconduct)
Disciplinary Counsel v. Broeren, 115 Ohio St.3d 473 (2007-Ohio-5251) (aggravating/mitigating factors considered in sanctioning)
Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Marosan, 109 Ohio St.3d 439 (2006-Ohio-2816) (six-month suspension for neglect and non-cooperation)