|
|
| 2007 | 2006 | 2005 | 2004 | 2003 | 2002 | 2001 | 2000 | Search | Upcoming cases |
Public Information Home
Central Ohio Attorneys Disbarred, Suspended Mansfield Judge Receives Stayed Suspension
In separate disciplinary actions announced today, the Supreme Court of Ohio disbarred attorney Melissa Anne Houser of New Albany, indefinitely suspended the license of Columbus attorney Eileen B. Hiltbrand, and imposed a stayed two-year suspension against Mansfield Municipal Court Judge Jerry E. Ault.
2006-0430. Disciplinary Counsel v. Houser, 2006-Ohio-4246.
On Certified Report by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline, No. 04-055. Melissa Anne Houser, Attorney Registration No. 0055517, is permanently disbarred from the practice of law in Ohio.
Moyer, C.J., Resnick, Pfeifer, Lundberg Stratton, O'Connor, O'Donnell and Lanzinger, JJ., concur.
Opinion: http://www.supremecourtofohio.gov/rod/newpdf/0/2006/2006-Ohio-4246.pdf
(Aug. 30, 2006) The Supreme Court of Ohio voted 7-0 to permanently revoke the law license of New Albany attorney Melissa Anne Houser for conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit and misrepresentation in her dealings with vulnerable clients while acting as a licensed insurance agent.
The Court adopted findings of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances & Discipline that Houser falsely represented to an elderly couple that insurance annuities totaling $150,000 that she sold them would provide a guaranteed fixed rate of return when they were actually high-risk variable rate annuities that subsequently declined in value, causing significant economic harm to the buyers. To placate the couple, Houser prepared two unauthorized promissory notes stating that her employer, Fairfield Financial Solutions, would guarantee a return of 6.5 percent on the variable rate annuities if the couple held them for seven years.
Houser's unfair, dishonest and deceptive practices in this and other insurance transactions resulted in her termination by Fairfield, revocation of her Ohio insurance agent's license and a ban by the National Association of Securities Dealers (NASD) on her future association with any NASD member.
The Court also found that Houser had failed to cooperate with disciplinary authorities investigating the complaints against her, and had committed multiple violations of Supreme Court bar governance rules by failing to biannually register with the Court and pay registration fees.
Finding no mitigating factors and multiple aggravating factors in her case, including Houser's deceit, lack of remorse for her actions and failure to cooperate with disciplinary authorities, the Court unanimously adopted the disciplinary board's recommendation that the appropriate sanction for Houser's misconduct was the permanent revocation of her law license.
Contacts
Carol A. Costa, 614.461.0256, for the
Office of Disciplinary Counsel.
No current contact information available for Melissa Houser.
2006-0441. Disciplinary Counsel v. Ault, 2006-Ohio-4247.
On Certified Report by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline, No. 04-068. Jerry Edwin Ault, Attorney Registration No. 0008445, is suspended from the practice of law in Ohio for two years, stayed on conditions.
Moyer, C.J., Resnick, Pfeifer, Lundberg Stratton, O'Connor, O'Donnell and Lanzinger, JJ., concur.
Opinion: http://www.supremecourtofohio.gov/rod/newpdf/0/2006/2006-Ohio-4247.pdf
(Aug. 30, 2006) The law license of Mansfield Municipal Court Judge Jerry Ault has been placed under a two-year suspension, with the entire term of suspension stayed on conditions, for violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct and Code of Professional Responsibility arising from Ault's abuse of prescription pain-killing drugs.
In a unanimous per curiam decision announced today, the Supreme Court adopted findings by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances & Discipline that over a period of 15 months, Ault, who suffers from osteoarthritis and other debilitating medical conditions, sought and obtained duplicative prescriptions for Schedule II, III and IV narcotic medications from six different physicians. The board found that Ault obtained and filled prescriptions for Methadone, Oxycontin, Percodan, Duragesic patches, Vicodin, Tylenol with Codeine, Darvon and Darvocet while denying or concealing from each prescribing physician the fact that he was simultaneously obtaining these medications from other doctors.
In May 2003, after the Ohio Pharmacy Board initiated an investigation regarding his prescriptions, Ault was admitted to Talbot Hall at The Ohio State University for inpatient treatment of drug addiction and alcohol abuse. In June 2003 Ault entered into a recovery and monitoring contract with the Ohio Lawyers Assistance Program (OLAP). He subsequently entered a no-contest plea to two misdemeanor counts of attempting to obtain a dangerous drug by deception, and was sentenced to a suspended 120-day jail term, fined $1,000 and ordered to serve a two-year probation period under strict conditions to assist in his recovery.
The Court adopted the board's conclusions that Ault's conduct violated a state disciplinary rule that prohibits attorneys or judges from engaging in conduct involving fraud, deceit, dishonesty or misrepresentation, and also violated the judicial ethics canons that require judges to uphold the integrity of the judiciary, to comply with the law and act in a manner that promotes public confidence in judicial integrity, and to avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all their activities.
In setting the sanction for his misconduct the Court considered the mitigating factors that Ault had no prior record of disciplinary infractions, cooperated fully with the disciplinary process, and has shown sustained commitment to recovery from his chemical dependency by completing a two-year OLAP contract and continuing to actively participate in a 12-step recovery program. While acknowledging that Ault “suffers chronic pain from a variety of serious physical infirmities,” the Court noted that he had frustrated his doctors' attempts to manage his pain with controlled substances without causing addiction when he simultaneously abused alcohol and intentionally deceived the doctors into “feeding the addiction” by obtaining duplicate and overlapping prescriptions.
The Court noted testimony by professional colleagues attesting that Ault's addiction apparently did not compromise his performance as a judge, pointing out that “(t)he Clerk of the Mansfield Municipal Court recounted that respondent had ‘fulfilled all of the obligations of a dedicated public servant' and had shown ‘impressive leadership in conducting the business of the court.' The Mansfield Chief of Police also reported that he had worked with respondent in court and outside of court at all hours of the day, yet respondent had been always been ‘alert, attentive, and professional.' In fact, the police chief never suspected respondent's drug addiction.”
“Attorneys are obligated to secure the medical or other therapeutic assistance they need before any client, or in the case of a judge, a litigant, suffers from the attorney's professional incompetence,” the Court wrote. Thus, in Disciplinary Counsel v. Connor, we attributed significant mitigating effect to the fact that although a judge's alcoholism had resulted in two drunk-driving convictions, his alcohol abuse had not impaired his performance on the bench. Because that judge had also committed to treatment and had maintained sobriety for nearly two years, we found that he could continue to act as a judge without any risk to the public or the judicial system. We draw the same conclusion here.”
In imposing a two-year suspension, with the full term of suspension stayed, the Court specified that Ault may continue to perform his judicial duties “ on the conditions that respondent (1) serve a two-year probation period pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(9), and (2) comply with a new two-year OLAP recovery contract during that probation. If respondent fails to comply with the conditions of the stay, the stay shall be lifted, and respondent shall serve the entire two-year suspension.”
Contacts
Jonathan E. Coughlan, 614.461.0256, for the
Office of Disciplinary Counsel.
Jay Milano, 440.356.2828, for Judge Jerry Ault.
2006-0774. Disciplinary Counsel v. Hiltbrand, 2006-Ohio-4250.
On Certified Report by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline, No. 03-090. Eileen Brubeck Hiltbrand, Attorney Registration No. 0069807, is indefinitely suspended from the practice of law in Ohio.
Moyer, C.J., Resnick, Pfeifer, Lundberg Stratton, O'Connor, O'Donnell and Lanzinger, JJ., concur.
Opinion: http://www.supremecourtofohio.gov/rod/newpdf/0/2006/2006-Ohio-4250.pdf
(Aug. 30, 2006) The Supreme Court of Ohio today indefinitely suspended the law license of Columbus attorney Eileen Brubeck Hiltbrand for professional misconduct stemming from her convictions on multiple misdemeanor criminal charges as well as a separate incident in which Hiltbrand violated an order of a court barring the disclosure of protected testimony.
The Board of Commissioners on Grievances & Discipline found that in the year 2001 Hiltbrand was charged with operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated in March, pleaded guilty to reckless operation, and served a short period in jail. In July, Hiltbrand was arrested for driving with a suspended driver's license, pleaded guilty and received a suspended jail sentence. And in September, she was charged with telephone harassment, pleaded no contest and received another suspended jail sentence.
In May 2002, an anonymous tip that Hiltbrand had picked up her son from school while appearing intoxicated led to her arrest for several offenses, including operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated, driving on a suspended license, endangering children and possession of an open container of alcohol. She pleaded no contest to driving while intoxicated and served 10 days in jail. Hiltbrand also pleaded guilty to resisting arrest in the May 2002 incident. In January 2003, Hiltbrand also was charged with criminal trespassing and later pleaded guilty to a charge of disorderly conduct.
In an unrelated matter, Hiltbrand was found by the board to have disclosed protected testimony in a civil lawsuit involving her ex-husband, thus violating the state attorney discipline rule that prohibits conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice.
In recommending a sanction, the board considered the aggravating factors that Hiltbrand engaged in a pattern of misconduct and failed to appear at her disciplinary hearing. The board found that “(r)espondent appears to be suffering from an alcohol-dependency problem that has contributed to her misconduct.” Because Hiltbrand had not completed an approved treatment program, however, the board held that dependency could not be considered as a mitigating factor.
The Court adopted the findings of the board and accepted its recommendation that Hiltbrand's law license be suspended indefinitely. The Court stated further that Hiltbrand's reinstatement will not be considered until a medical professional has certified that she has completed a sustained period of recovery from her dependency and complied with the terms of a contract with the Ohio Lawyers Assistance Program.
Contacts
Lori J. Brown, 614.461.0256, for the Office of Disciplinary Counsel.
Gerald R. Walton, 216.621.1230, for Eileen B. Hiltbrand.
Please note: Opinion summaries are prepared by the Office of Public Information for the general public and news media. Opinion summaries are not prepared for every opinion released by the Court, but only for those cases considered noteworthy or of great public interest. Opinion summaries are not to be considered as official headnotes or syllabi of Court opinions. The full text of this and other Court opinions from 1992 to the present are available online from the Reporter of Decisions: http://www.supremecourtofohio.gov/ROD/newpdf/. In the Full Text search box, enter the eight-digit case number at the top of this summary and click "Submit."