Disciplinary Counsel v. Seabrook
133 Ohio St. 3d 97
| Ohio | 2012Background
- Seabrook, admitted in 1998 in Ohio, previously suspended for Gov.Bar R. VI registration noncompliance and later reinstated in 2010.
- Relator filed 2010 complaint alleging continued practice during suspension and failure to cooperate in disciplinary investigations.
- Counts One and Two involve two clients who were represented or assisted during suspended periods and related inquiries.
- Relator charged violations of Prof.Cond.R. 5.5(a), 5.5(b)(2), 8.1(b), 8.4(d), 8.4(h), and Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) for practicing while suspended and failing to respond.
- Panel and board recommended a two-year suspension with the entire term stayed on conditions including OLAP, mentorship, and extra CLE.
- Court imposed a two-year suspension with second year stayed, subject to OLAP contract, additional CLE, monitored probation, and no further misconduct; costs taxed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Seabrook practice law while suspended? | Seabrook violated 5.5(a) and related rules by practicing while suspended. | Seabrook argues lack of intent or harm; relies on mitigating factors but acknowledges some nondiligence. | Yes; misconduct found for practicing during suspension. |
| Did Seabrook fail to cooperate with disciplinary inquiries? | Relator contends Seabrook did not respond to information requests. | Seabrook denies or minimizes failure but acknowledges insufficient cooperation. | Yes; violation of 8.1(b) and related rules established. |
| What is the appropriate sanction for Seabrook’s misconduct? | Relator recommends substantial suspension with accountability measures. | Seabrook seeks shorter or fully stayed suspension with probation. | Two-year suspension with second year stayed, conditioned on OLAP, extra CLE, and no further misconduct. |
Key Cases Cited
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Lape, 130 Ohio St.3d 273 (2011-Ohio-5757) (six-month to two-year spectrum with stay for similar office-negligence misconduct)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Higgins, 117 Ohio St.3d 473 (2008-Ohio-1509) (indefinite suspension for continuing to practice during suspension)
- Toledo Bar Assn. v. Crandall, 98 Ohio St.3d 444 (2003-Ohio-1637) (indefinite suspension for failed compliance after suspension)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Blackwell, 79 Ohio St.3d 395 (1997) (two-year suspension with second year stayed for conduct during recovery)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Bancsi, 79 Ohio St.3d 392 (1997) (one-year suspension with six months stayed for prompt CLE cure and cooperation)