Summary
The Supreme Court of Ohio disciplined Eric Maurice Seabrook for practicing law while his license was suspended and failing to cooperate with disciplinary investigations. The court imposed a two-year suspension, with the second year stayed subject to an Ohio Lawyers Assistance Program contract, continuing legal education, and no further misconduct, followed by monitored probation upon reinstatement.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Seabrook's conduct violated the Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct and Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G).
- What sanction was appropriate for practicing law during an attorney-registration suspension and failing to cooperate with disciplinary investigations.
- Whether the entire two-year suspension should be stayed on conditions or whether an actual period of suspension was warranted.
Holdings
- Seabrook violated Prof.Cond.R. 5.5(a), 5.5(b)(2), 8.1(b), 8.4(d), and 8.4(h), and Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G), by practicing law while his license was suspended, holding himself out as authorized to practice, failing to respond to disciplinary inquiries, engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice, and adversely reflecting on his fitness to practice law.
- A two-year suspension from the practice of law was warranted, with the second year stayed subject to an Ohio Lawyers Assistance Program contract, continuing legal education in law-office management, and no further misconduct.
Key quotations
“The normal penalty for continuing to practice law while under suspension is disbarment.” (¶ 12)
“We do not take the recommendations of the panel and board lightly, but given the sanctions we have imposed for similar misconduct and our ongoing concerns about Seabrook’s mental health since he stopped taking his medications in 2010, we conclude that an actual suspension from the practice of law is warranted.” (¶ 14)
“Accordingly, we suspend Eric M. Seabrook from the practice of law for two years, with the second year stayed on the conditions that he (1) enter into a two-year OLAP contract and fully comply with all OLAP recommendations, (2) attend at least six hours of CLE in law-office management in addition to the requirements of Gov.Bar R. X, and (3) commit no further misconduct.” (¶ 15)
Factual background
During a period when his Ohio license was suspended for attorney-registration violations, Seabrook represented David Tye in an administrative child-support matter and Herb James in an eviction proceeding. The proceedings were disrupted or dismissed after the clients and related personnel discovered Seabrook's suspension. Seabrook failed to respond to disciplinary inquiries sent to the address listed in his attorney-registration records and did not self-report the violations.
Procedural history
Disciplinary Counsel filed a complaint alleging that Seabrook practiced law while his Ohio attorney-registration license was suspended and failed to cooperate with the resulting disciplinary investigations. The panel and board adopted the parties' stipulations and recommended a two-year suspension stayed in its entirety on conditions. The Supreme Court of Ohio adopted the findings of fact and misconduct but imposed a two-year suspension with only the second year stayed on specified conditions.