Disciplinary Counsel v. Hallquist, 2011 Ohio 1819

Respondent Kevin Hallquist was admitted to the Ohio bar in 1986 and was served via default proceeding after failing to respond to a disciplinary complaint (filed June 14, 2010).
Counts 1 and 2 allege separate misconduct: (1) misappropriating settlement funds and failing to resolve unpaid medical bills for a client couple, and (2) accepting fees to expunge a client’s conviction but failing to timely file the motion.
Respondent testified he did not know the terms of the settlement and did not contact the clients or insurer to resolve unpaid bills, despite statements and documents he provided in discovery.
Respondent admitted receiving $500 and $100 in 2009 for expungement work but did not file the motion until October 2, 2009; the court dismissed the motion after the client failed to appear at hearings.
The Board found violations of Prof.Cond.R. 1.3, 1.4(a)(2), 1.4(a)(3), 8.1(b), and Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) based on neglect, failure to communicate, and cooperation failures.
The court imposed a two-year suspension with the last six months stayed, conditioned on no further misconduct and restitution of $1,108 to the Count 1 clients and $600 to the Count 2 client; costs taxed to respondent.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether respondent’s conduct violated professional conduct rules	Hallquist’s neglect and misappropriation harmed clients.	Hallquist contends defenses or lack of knowledge about terms; miscommunication may be explained.	Yes; violations established (Counts 1–2) for neglect and failure to cooperate.
Appropriate sanction for multiple offenses	Indefinite suspension or substantial sanction warranted given pattern of misconduct.	Two-year suspension with some stay would be adequate.	Two-year suspension with last six months stayed on conditions.
Conditions of the stay and restitution requirements	Stay conditioned on restitution and no further misconduct; cooperation ongoing.	Stay should be unconditional or with limited conditions.	Stay conditioned on restitution of $1,108 and $600 refund; stay lifted on failure to comply.

Disciplinary Counsel v. Mathewson, 113 Ohio St.3d 365 (2007-Ohio-2076) (indefinite suspension for multiple offenses and prejudice to clients)
Paulson, 111 Ohio St.3d 415 (2006-Ohio-5859) (two-year suspension for neglect and failure to respond; conduct affected one client)
Noel, 126 Ohio St.3d 56 (2010-Ohio-2714) (two-year suspension with six months stayed for neglect and failure to deliver files)
Marosan, 106 Ohio St.3d 430 (2005-Ohio-5412) (two-year suspension with 18 months stayed for neglect and misappropriations; similar reasoning)
Lieser, 79 Ohio St.3d 488 (1997-Ohio-488) (pattern of misconduct and aggravating factors in disciplinary decisions)
Chasser, 124 Ohio St.3d 578 (2010-Ohio-956) (recognition that sanctions depend on unique circumstances and factors)
Buttacavoli, 96 Ohio St.3d 424 (2002-Ohio-4743) (indicates aggravating/mitigating factors in sanctions)
Broeren, 115 Ohio St.3d 473 (2007-Ohio-5251) (considers aggravating/mitigating factors in sanctioning)