2014 Ohio 2113
Ohio2014Background
- Scott Thomas Hillis, admitted 1989, was Zanesville's elected part-time law director when arrested after being found in a parked car with a known prostitute.
- Hillis pleaded no contest to misdemeanors of solicitation and criminal trespass and received criminal penalties (30-day suspended jail term, $400 fine, 90-day license suspension, 30 hours community service).
- Disciplinary Counsel charged Hillis with professional misconduct for conduct adversely reflecting on fitness to practice law (Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(h)).
- Hillis entered a consent-to-discipline agreement admitting the facts and the Rule 8.4(h) violation.
- Parties and the Board agreed the appropriate sanction was a six-month suspension, stayed in its entirety, conditioned on no further misconduct; panel and Board recommended adoption.
- The Supreme Court adopted the agreement, noting Hillis’s status as an elected public official justified a stiffer sanction than a public reprimand in a comparable prior case.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Hillis’s conduct violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(h) | Hillis’s solicitation and trespass reflect adversely on fitness to practice | Hillis admitted the facts and stipulated to the violation | Court found a violation of Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(h) |
| Appropriate disciplinary sanction | Six-month suspension, stayed entirely given mitigating factors | Same — parties stipulated to a stayed six-month suspension | Court adopted the consent-to-discipline: six-month suspension, entirely stayed conditioned on no further misconduct |
| Whether prior case law mandates a lesser sanction (public reprimand) | Not raised as separate argument; disciplinary counsel nonetheless sought greater sanction here given public-office status | Hillis relied on mitigating factors to support stayed suspension | Court distinguished Richland Cty. Bar Assn. v. Brightbill and imposed a greater sanction due to Hillis’s elected public-official role |
| Conditions for lifting stay | Stay should be conditioned on no further misconduct | Parties agreed condition: any further misconduct lifts stay | Court imposed the agreed condition: violation of the condition will lift the stay and activate the six-month suspension |
Key Cases Cited
- Richland Cty. Bar Assn. v. Brightbill, 56 Ohio St.3d 95, 564 N.E.2d 471 (1990) (public reprimand in case of an assistant prosecuting attorney convicted of impersonating an officer and soliciting sexual activity for hire)