Cleveland Metro. Bar Ass'n v. Hurley, 152 Ohio St. 3d 536, 2018-Ohio-231

98 N.E.3d 259 (Ohio 2018) · Supreme Court of Ohio · January 16, 2018

Summary

The Ohio Supreme Court held that Rosel Charles Hurley III violated professional-conduct rules by sending demand letters to employers while suspended, using his former law firm's name, misrepresenting the existence of a client, and holding himself out as authorized to practice law. The court imposed an indefinite suspension rather than disbarment, citing mitigating factors including cooperation, restitution, and participation in an Ohio Lawyers Assistance Program contract, subject to conditions for reinstatement.

Holdings

  1. A suspended attorney engages in the unauthorized practice of law when he holds himself out to the public or otherwise represents that he is authorized to practice in Ohio, even if he does not actually render legal services for a client.
  2. Federal law authorizing a person to file an EEOC discrimination charge does not protect a suspended attorney's private settlement efforts on behalf of a nonexistent client absent an express federal statute or regulation authorizing that activity.
  3. Hurley violated Prof.Cond.R. 5.5(a), 5.5(b)(2), 7.1, and 8.4(c) by sending the demand letters while suspended, using his former law firm's name and the title 'Esquire,' representing that he had a client, and omitting that he was suspended and acting for himself.
  4. An indefinite suspension, rather than permanent disbarment, was the appropriate sanction because Hurley cooperated in the disciplinary process, made restitution, and entered into an OLAP contract to address a diagnosed mental disorder.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether a suspended Ohio attorney engages in the unauthorized practice of law by holding himself out to the public as authorized to practice, even when he does not actually represent a client.
  2. Whether federal authorization to file discrimination charges with the EEOC protected Hurley's private settlement activity from professional-discipline rules.
  3. Whether the Board of Professional Conduct properly found violations of Prof.Cond.R. 5.5(a), 5.5(b)(2), 7.1, and 8.4(c).
  4. Whether the appropriate sanction was permanent disbarment or an indefinite suspension in light of the misconduct and mitigating circumstances.

Disposition

other

Cases Cited (14)

  • In re Hurley, 134 Ohio St. 3d 1491, 2013-Ohio-924, 984 N.E.2d 33(followed)
  • In re Attorney Registration Suspension of Hurley, 136 Ohio St. 3d 1544, 2013-Ohio-4827, 996 N.E.2d 973(followed)
  • Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn. v. Hurley, 143 Ohio St. 3d 69, 2015-Ohio-1568, 34 N.E.3d 116(followed)
  • Disciplinary Counsel v. Harris, 137 Ohio St. 1, 2013-Ohio-4026, 996 N.E.2d 921, ¶ 18(followed)
  • Sperry v. Florida ex rel. Florida Bar, 373 U.S. 379, 83 S. Ct. 1322, 10 L. Ed. 2d 428 (1963)(distinguished)
  • Disciplinary Counsel v. Goldblatt, 118 Ohio St. 3d 310, 2008-Ohio-2458, 888 N.E.2d 1091, ¶ 5(followed)
  • Disciplinary Counsel v. Smith, 124 Ohio St. 3d 49, 2009-Ohio-5960, 918 N.E.2d 992, ¶ 25(followed)
  • Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Mullaney, 119 Ohio St. 3d 412, 2008-Ohio-4541, 894 N.E.2d 1210, ¶ 40(followed)
  • Erie-Huron Counties Joint Certified Grievance Commt. v. Derby, 131 Ohio St. 3d 144, 2012-Ohio-78, 961 N.E.2d 1124, ¶ 10(followed)
  • Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn. v. Pryatel, 145 Ohio St. 3d 398, 2016-Ohio-865, 49 N.E.3d 1286, ¶ 21(distinguished)

Showing top 10 of 14.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Download CaseDownload Case DataDownload Case and DataDownload AI Instructions

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…

More from Ohio Supreme Court