Disciplinary Counsel v. Hanni - Ohio Supreme Court Opinion - Ohio Supreme Court Decision

	ROMINGER LEGAL
		Ohio Court Cases and Opinions - Ohio Legal Research
					Need Legal Help?
					Need Legal Help?
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER			LEGAL HEADLINES - CASE LAW - LEGAL FORMS	NOT FINDING WHAT YOU NEED? -RESEARCH

This court case was taken from the web sites of the Ohio Courts. Search our site for more cases - CLICK HERE

LEGAL RESEARCH

COURT REPORTERS

PRIVATE INVESTIGATORS

PROCESS SERVERS

DOCUMENT RETRIEVERS

EXPERT WITNESSES

Find a Private Investigator

Find an Expert Witness

Find a Process Server

Case Law - save on Lexis / WestLaw.

Legal News - Legal Headlines

[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Hanni, 94 Ohio St.3d 446, 2002-Ohio-1052.]

OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL ET AL. v. HANNI.
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Hanni (2002), 94 Ohio St.3d 446.]
Attorneys at law -- Misconduct -- Six-month suspension with entire sanction
stayed -- Engaging in conduct adversely reflecting on fitness to practice
law.
(No. 01-1133 -- Submitted October 2, 2001 -- Decided March 13, 2002.)
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 00-08.
__________________
Per
Curiam. On February 14, 2000, relator Disciplinary Counsel filed a
complaint charging that respondent, Don L. Hanni of Youngstown, Ohio,
Attorney Registration No. 0007862, violated several provisions of the Code of
Professional Responsibility. Relators, Disciplinary Counsel and the Mahoning
County Bar Association, filed an amended complaint against Hanni on August 3,
2000. Respondent answered, and the matter was submitted to a panel of the
Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court
("board").

After a hearing, the panel found that in August 1995, Patrick C. Connolly
sought advice from respondent about a potential extortion scheme whereby an
anonymous party indicated that Connolly would be indicted unless he paid
$60,000. The panel believed that at that first meeting with Connolly, which lasted
about twenty minutes, respondent telephoned the prosecutor's office and
determined that no charges were pending against Connolly. At the conclusion of
the meeting, respondent asked Connolly for a retainer, and the next day, Connolly
returned, discussed the matter with respondent for about fifteen minutes, and gave
respondent the retainer. Respondent gave Connolly a receipt for $1,500.

SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

During these meetings, Connolly did not identify any persons who might
be involved in the attempted extortion. Respondent told Connolly that he would
investigate further and would contact Connolly. Connolly was never charged
with a crime. Connolly called respondent after these two meetings but was unable
to reach him. Respondent, however, did not formally withdraw from
representation. Connolly did not ask for a refund of the retainer, and respondent
did not return any money to Connolly.

Three and a half years later, in May 1999, a Columbiana County Grand
Jury indicted Russell J. Saadey, Jr. for, among other things, attempted extortion of
Connolly in 1995. One of the attorneys present for the arrest and arraignment of
Saadey was respondent. At a meeting with Connolly that was arranged by an FBI
agent who perceived a conflict in respondent's representation of Saadey,
respondent said that he had searched his files and could find no reference to a
previous meeting with Connolly. While he may have met with Connolly in 1995,
respondent said, he could not recall how he might have represented him. As the
discussion with the FBI agent and Connolly progressed, respondent said that he
began to remember a few things and would search "one more place." Shortly
thereafter, respondent sent the agent the notes of his 1995 meeting with Connolly.

Respondent then wrote to the agent that he saw no conflict in his
representation of Saadey and, moreover, Connolly had waived any attorney-client
privilege. However, on motion of the county prosecutor, the Court of Common
Pleas of Columbiana County disqualified respondent from representing Saadey.
During the hearing on the motion, respondent attacked the credibility of the
state's claim that Connolly had engaged respondent.

Respondent humiliated and sought to ridicule his former client by denying
his prior representation and by attacking Connolly's credibility, when in fact
respondent had accepted a substantial retainer from Connolly. Respondent's
failure to keep adequate records and return the unearned retainer supports the
2

January Term, 2002
panel's conclusion that respondent violated DR 5-105(A) (a lawyer shall refuse
employment if the exercise of his independent professional judgment will be
adversely affected), 1-102(A)(5) (a lawyer shall not engage in conduct prejudicial
to the administration of justice), and 1-102(A)(6) (a lawyer shall not engage in
conduct adversely reflecting on the lawyer's fitness to practice law). Noting
respondent's long and distinguished legal career and his role as a community
leader, and considering the fact that he had no prior disciplinary record, the panel
recommended that respondent receive a public reprimand. The board adopted the
findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the panel.

We have reviewed the record and note that respondent's initial meeting
with Connolly involved only Connolly's concern about possible criminal charges
against him. Neither Connolly's testimony, nor the material that Connolly gave to
respondent, nor respondent's notes indicate that Connolly told respondent that
Saadey was involved in attempting to extort money from him. Also, the record
does not support the board's finding that "[a]t that initial meeting respondent
informed Connolly that no charges were pending." On the contrary, Connolly
testified that after making a phone call to the prosecutor's office, respondent told
Connolly that he would find out whether there were charges pending and get back
to him. It was a coworker with political connections who told Connolly that no
charges would be filed against him.

However, because respondent kept no clear record of his representation of
Connolly and made no attempt to return Connolly's unearned retainer when he
had a duty to do so if he no longer intended to represent Connolly, we find that a
more severe penalty is warranted.

Therefore, we hereby suspend respondent from the practice of law for six
months with the entire six-month suspension stayed. Costs are taxed to
respondent.
Judgment accordingly.
3

SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

DOUGLAS, ACTING C.J., SHAW, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PIETRYKOWSKI
and LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur.

COOK, J., concurs in judgment.

STEPHEN R. SHAW, J., of the Third Appellate District, sitting for MOYER,
C.J.

MARK L. PIETRYKOWSKI, J., of the Sixth Appellate District, sitting for
PFEIFER, J.
__________________

Jonathan E. Coughlan, Disciplinary Counsel, and Stacy Solochek
Beckman, Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator Office of Disciplinary
Counsel.
Larry
D.
Wilkes, for relator Mahoning County Bar Association.

Vincent E. Gilmartin, for respondent.
__________________
4