Disciplinary Counsel v. Hoskins
150 Ohio St. 3d 41
| Ohio | 2017Background
- Robert H. Hoskins, Ohio attorney (Reg. No. 0068550), was suspended in Kentucky (60 days) and received reciprocal 60-day suspension in Ohio on April 23, 2015; that Ohio suspension remained in effect and was later supplemented by additional discipline including an indefinite suspension.
- While suspended, Hoskins continued to practice in multiple matters (six client matters), including impersonating a former colleague (Thomas Mayes) in court and in communications with opposing counsel.
- Specific misconduct included: appearing and litigating while suspended, falsely claiming his license had been reinstated, failing to notify clients of withdrawal or suspension, failing to return files or refund unearned fees, and failing to cooperate with disciplinary investigations.
- Relator (Disciplinary Counsel) presented evidence at a board hearing; Hoskins admitted some facts but did not appear at the hearing and failed to fully cooperate. The Board found multiple Rule violations and recommended permanent disbarment.
- The Supreme Court found extensive aggravating factors (prior discipline, dishonesty, pattern of misconduct, noncooperation, client harm) and limited mitigation, holding that permanent disbarment was the only appropriate sanction and ordering $1,500 restitution to one client.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Hoskins practiced law while suspended | Disciplinary Counsel: Hoskins knowingly continued to undertake litigation activity, depositions, court appearances, and client work during suspension. | Hoskins (limited admissions): disputed some allegations; generally failed to contest many facts and did not appear at hearing. | Court: Held Hoskins knowingly practiced while suspended in multiple matters (violated Prof.Cond.R. 5.5(a)). |
| Whether Hoskins engaged in dishonesty and misrepresentation | Relator: Hoskins lied to clients, opposing counsel, and courts; impersonated another attorney to conceal illicit practice. | Hoskins: made partial admissions but offered no effective rebuttal; submitted limited mitigating material after hearing. | Court: Held Hoskins committed multiple dishonesty violations (Rules 3.3, 4.1, 8.4(c), etc.). |
| Whether Hoskins failed to communicate with or protect clients | Relator: Hoskins failed to inform clients of suspension, failed to return files, failed to refund unearned fees, and failed to respond to client requests. | Hoskins: did not present persuasive defenses or mitigate client-harm assertions. | Court: Held violations of communication and withdrawal obligations (Prof.Cond.R. 1.4, 1.16). |
| Appropriate sanction for repeated practice while suspended and related misconduct | Relator: Given multiplicity of violations, dishonesty, pattern of noncooperation, and prior discipline, permanent disbarment is warranted. | Hoskins: offered little mitigation (psychologist letter late) and had prior sanctions already imposed. | Court: Permanent disbarment imposed; $1,500 restitution ordered; costs taxed to Hoskins. |
Key Cases Cited
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Fletcher, 987 N.E.2d 678 (2013) (continuing to practice while suspended generally warrants disbarment)
- Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn. v. Pryatel, 49 N.E.3d 1286 (2016) (disbarment appropriate for repeated violations and failure to cooperate)
- Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn. v. Brown, 37 N.E.3d 1199 (2015) (similar sanctioning where misconduct persisted after prior discipline)
- Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn. v. Cicirella, 979 N.E.2d 244 (2012) (pattern of repeated suspension violations supports disbarment)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Sabroff, 915 N.E.2d 307 (2009) (continuing-practice-while-suspended precedent supporting disbarment)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Frazier, 853 N.E.2d 295 (2006) (disbarment as presumptive sanction for practicing during suspension)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Allison, 784 N.E.2d 695 (2003) (disbarment for unauthorized practice while suspended)