“Writing Strictly As A Friend And A Christian Who Wants To Help”

The web page of the Ohio Supreme Court previews a bar discipline matter scheduled for argument this week:

The Board of Professional Conduct has recommended to the Ohio Supreme Court that Milford attorney John Hauck be indefinitely suspended from the practice of law for his part in helping a man to write and send a letter to his mother and stepfather in violation of a civil protection order (CPO).

Attorney Sends Letter to Friend’s Family
Richard Ellison was convicted in 2005 for aggravated burglary, kidnapping, and abduction following an incident involving his mother and stepfather, Jeanne and Edmund Lee. When Ellison was about to be released from prison in 2010, the Lees obtained a five-year CPO, which prevented Ellison from contacting the Lees in any way, including through another party.

In March 2014, Hauck, who had befriended Ellison, sent a letter to the Lees on behalf of Ellison. The letter, signed by Hauck and printed on letterhead bearing his name and “attorney at law,” specifically requested that the Lees cancel the CPO. (Ellison and Hauck didn’t know at the time that Edmund Lee had died in late 2010.)

Hauck claims in his brief to the Court that the letter was “largely composed by … Mr. Ellison, but it was signed and fully adopted, as his own writing ….” The attorney also explains he and Ellison collaborated for several months to prepare the letter, which was intended to “encourage the Lee family to reconcile with their son ….”

Immunity Granted to Attorney
When she received the letter, Mrs. Lee contacted the police, and a criminal complaint was filed against Ellison alleging he had violated the protection order. Ellison was subsequently arrested and jailed on the charge. The prosecutor in the case said Hauck also could’ve been charged criminally for violating the protection order, but he was granted immunity if he testified against Ellison at trial. Ellison ultimately entered a plea before trial, so Hauck never had to testify.

Hauck Denies Four of Five Allegations
The Cincinnati Bar Association (CBA) filed a complaint against Hauck alleging multiple violations of the attorney Rules of Professional Conduct.

The board found that Hauck gave Ellison his time and advice, edited the letter, and then adopted it as his own by signing it. These actions established an attorney-client relationship, the board states in its report. But Hauck didn’t act competently as Ellison’s attorney when he encouraged his client to send the letter instead of seeking to review the CPO and then discouraging Ellison from violating it. The board also concluded that Hauck committed an illegal act by helping his client to violate the CPO, that he tried to deceive the Lees by sending the letter under his signature and on attorney letterhead, and that he harmed the justice system when he disregarded the Hamilton County court’s order.

Of the five violations found by the board, Hauck denies all but one – practicing law while not in good standing with the Ohio Supreme Court. He admits his license was suspended at the time the events took place. However, he argues the reason for the suspension was because the Court didn’t notify him that his biennial registration was due.

Attorney’s Objections, Bar Association’s Responses
In his objections to the board’s report and recommended sanction, Hauck maintains Ellison was his friend and not his client. Hauck points to the disclaimer he included in the letter that stated he was “… writing strictly as a friend and a Christian who wants to help,” as evidence he was not acting as Ellison’s legal representative.

However, the CBA argues that Hauck’s behavior suggests otherwise, including when he:

• Used his personal letterhead for the letter sent to the Lees
• Used his attorney identification card to enter the jail to visit Ellison
• Wrote three letters to the Terrace Hill Police Department addressing Ellison’s case.

Additionally, Ellison had asserted attorney-client privilege existed between himself and Hauck when he learned Hauck was ordered to testify in the criminal case against him.

While Hauck states that he doesn’t dispute he helped Ellison in writing the letter, he also claims the board sets forth no law to support its ruling that he aided and abetted Ellison in an illegal act.

As far as the CPO itself, Hauck claims R.C. 3113.31, Ohio’s civil protection statute, is unconstitutional. He reasons he can’t be found to have violated the professional conduct rules if the violations are predicated on his disregard of an unconstitutional court order.

Because Hauck didn’t assert the claim in the trial court that issued the protection order, the CBA counters the right to raise it now is waived. And, the CBA also maintains Ohio courts have repeatedly held that the civil protection statute is neither vague nor does it violate any constitutional guarantees.

– Rachael S. Ingram

Docket entries, memoranda, briefs (including amicus briefs), and other information about this case may be accessed through the case docket.

Contacts
Representing the Cincinnati Bar Association: Richard Goldberg, 513.321.2662

John W. Hauck, pro se,513.621.0805