Dayton Bar Association v. Hooks
139 Ohio St. 3d 462
| Ohio | 2014Background
- Shawn Patrick Hooks, admitted 2005, was accused by the Dayton Bar Association of neglecting a client's custody/support modification, failing to communicate, and failing to cooperate in the disciplinary investigation.
- Client Michael Staup (resident of Tennessee) retained Hooks in Oct. 2011, paid a $1,500 retainer, and supplied documents; Hooks acknowledged receipt and promised to file pleadings but never did.
- Staup repeatedly tried to contact Hooks with no meaningful response and ultimately filed a grievance after continued lack of action and refunds.
- When the bar requested the client file in Sept. 2012, Hooks acknowledged representation but failed to produce the file despite later saying it was misplaced; he later refunded the retainer.
- Hooks stipulated to facts and admitted violations of Prof.Cond.R. 1.3 and 1.4; the board dismissed an asserted violation of Prof.Cond.R. 8.1 based on its view that Hooks made a good-faith effort to locate the file and had a reasonable belief about the investigator.
- The board recommended a six-month suspension, fully stayed on conditions including CLE in law-office management, OLAP evaluation, one-year mentoring, and no further misconduct; the Supreme Court adopted that sanction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Hooks neglected the client's matter (Prof.Cond.R. 1.3) | Hooks failed to file modification pleadings and ignored client communications; this is neglect | Hooks argued personal issues and insufficient office support contributed; no dishonest motive | Court found violation of Rule 1.3 (neglect) based on stipulated facts |
| Whether Hooks failed to reasonably communicate with the client (Prof.Cond.R. 1.4) | Repeated nonresponses left client uninformed while obligations continued | Hooks cited lack of staff and personal problems; he accepted responsibility | Court found violation of Rule 1.4 (failure to communicate) |
| Whether Hooks failed to respond to disciplinary inquiry (Prof.Cond.R. 8.1) | Bar alleged nonproduction of file and nonresponse to investigator | Hooks claimed investigator conflict and that the file had been misplaced despite efforts to locate it | Board and Court dismissed the 8.1 charge; no knowing failure to respond found |
| Appropriate sanction for the misconduct | Bar sought suspension stayed on conditions comparable to precedent | Hooks proposed remediation and cooperation, citing mitigation (no prior discipline, no dishonest motive) | Court imposed a six-month suspension, fully stayed on conditions (CLE, OLAP eval, mentoring, no further misconduct) |
Key Cases Cited
- Stark Cty. Bar Assn. v. Buttacavoli, 96 Ohio St.3d 424 (2002) (sets factors for sanctioning attorney misconduct)
- Allen Cty. Bar Assn. v. Brown, 124 Ohio St.3d 530 (2010) (one-year stayed suspension for neglect and poor practice management)
- Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Poole, 120 Ohio St.3d 361 (2008) (one-year stayed suspension for neglect, poor communication, and failure to cooperate)
- Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Norton, 116 Ohio St.3d 226 (2007) (six-month stayed suspension for neglect attributed to poor organization)
- Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Sherman, 101 Ohio St.3d 158 (2004) (six-month stayed suspension for single-matter neglect and communication failures)
- Dayton Bar Assn. v. Sebree, 96 Ohio St.3d 50 (2002) (six-month stayed suspension where neglect and poor office procedures caused client harm)