Stayed Suspension For Neglect

The Ohio Supreme Court imposed a fully-stayed suspension and probation of an attorney previously sanctioned

On December 2, 2010, we imposed a conditional suspension of her license to practice law for six months for her neglect of a client matter and certain unsubstantiated allegations of ethical misconduct that she had made against the incumbent county prosecutor.

This matter involved a custody dispute

During Hanni’s representation, she failed to appear for three scheduled appointments with the Goodwins and did not notify them in advance of her absence. She also sought to continue a hearing scheduled several weeks after her mother’s death on the ground that she was in Columbus tending to her daughter, who was despondent following the death of her grandmother. She mailed the motion to opposing counsel two days before the hearing and faxed it to the court the afternoon before the hearing, but the motion did not come to the attention of the magistrate or Hanni’s clients until the morning of the hearing. The magistrate initially denied the motion but granted it upon learning that Hanni was already in Columbus.

Although the order rescheduling the hearing stated that no further continuances would be granted, Hanni called the court the day before the next scheduled hearing to request a continuance on the ground that she was ill. When court personnel informed her that her motion would be denied if it was filed, Hanni attempted to engage substitute counsel but discovered that the attorney had a conflict that disqualified him from the representation. She faxed a motion for continuance to the court on the morning of the hearing stating that she was battling a severe bronchial infection and that she had an appointment to see her doctor that morning. She also attached a doctor’s excuse she had received the preceding week in an apparent effort to demonstrate that she was suffering from an ongoing illness that had not responded to earlier treatment. Because the doctor’s excuse stated that Hanni was able to return to work five days before the scheduled hearing, the magistrate instructed court personnel to inform her that the hearing would go forward. After Hanni failed to appear, the Goodwins waived their right to counsel and represented themselves. They ultimately prevailed and retained custody of their grandson.

The court

Hanni neglected a single matter by seeking to continue two custody hearings without giving adequate notice to her clients or the court. Rather than delay the matter the second time, her clients elected to forego legal representation and proceed pro se. Fortunately, they prevailed and maintained custody of their minor grandson. Given the significant mitigating factors present in this case—and in spite of Hanni’s prior discipline—we agree that a one-year suspension, fully stayed on the conditions that Hanni serve one year of monitored probation and the completion of six hours of CLE in law-office operation and management, will adequately protect the public from future misconduct.

Two justices dissented and would impose a one-year active suspension. (Mike Frisch)