Disciplinary Counsel v. Hoppel
129 Ohio St. 3d 53
| Ohio | 2011Background
- Respondent Richard V. Hoppel, admitted 1994, engaged in misconduct while addicted to cocaine.
- Relator filed 80+ disciplinary charges in Aug. 2009 for misappropriation of client funds and failure to perform legal work.
- Board found multiple violations; misconduct included retaining over $14,000 for 14 matters, failure to perform work, and deceit.
- Respondent admitted misconduct; board recommended indefinite suspension based on aggravating behavior and addiction, with restitution to clients.
- Respondent completed inpatient treatment, remained sober for over two years, and paid restitution; board's recommendation was disputed by respondent.
- Court imposed a two-year suspension with 18 months stayed conditioned on continued recovery and OLAP contract extension.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Appropriate sanction given mitigating factors | Disciplinary Counsel: board recommended indefinite suspension; mitigation present. | Hoppel: two-year suspension with conditional stay appropriate. | Two-year suspension with 18 months stayed on conditions. |
| Effect of restitution and sobriety on sanction | Restitution and sustained sobriety should influence sanction. | Mitigating factors support more lenient treatment. | Mitigation considered; two-year stay remains appropriate. |
| Use of prior disciplinary/registration history as aggravator | Registrant suspension in 2007 is an aggravating factor under BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(a). | Respondent disputes prejudice but acknowledges history. | Aggravating factor acknowledged; aggravation weighed in sanction. |
| Presumption of disbarment for misappropriation; can be rebutted | Misappropriation typically presumes disbarment; mitigation may rebut. | Evidence of recovery and restitution rebut the presumption. | Presumption rebutted; sanction tailored to recovery and restitution. |
Key Cases Cited
- Stark Cty. Bar Assn. v. Buttacavoli, 96 Ohio St.3d 424, 2002-Ohio-4743, 775 N.E.2d 818 (Ohio 2002) (considerations for sanctions and similar case precedent)
- Greco, 107 Ohio St.3d 155, 2005-Ohio-6045, 837 N.E.2d 369 (Ohio 2005) (mitigating factors and restitution discussed in similar misconduct)
- Columbus Bar Assn. v. Larkin, 128 Ohio St.3d 368, 2011-Ohio-762, 944 N.E.2d 669 (Ohio 2011) (prior disciplinary offenses and aggravation considerations)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Kellogg, 126 Ohio St.3d 360, 2010-Ohio-3285, 933 N.E.2d 1085 (Ohio 2010) (mitigation and comparable sanctions in drug-addiction cases)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Greco, 107 Ohio St.3d 155, 2005-Ohio-6045, 837 N.E.2d 369 (Ohio 2005) (extensive restitution issues and stayed suspension in addiction context)