|
|
2008-0352. Disciplinary Counsel v. Hoskins, Slip Opinion No. 2008-Ohio-3194.
On Certified Report by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline, No. 06-034. Jeffrey Jay Hoskins, Attorney Registration No. 0017133, is permanently disbarred from the practice of law in Ohio.
Moyer, C.J., and Pfeifer, Lundberg Stratton, O'Connor, O'Donnell, and Cupp, JJ., concur.
Lanzinger, J., concurs in judgment only.
Opinion: http://www.supremecourtofohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/0/2008/2008-Ohio-3194.pdf
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."
(July 3, 2008) The Supreme Court of Ohio today disbarred Judge Jeffrey Hoskins of the Highland County Court of Common Pleas for engaging in a pattern of professional misconduct “incompatible with his duties as a judge and a lawyer.” The Court’s 7-0 per curiam decision permanently revokes Hoskins’ license as an attorney and bars him for life from the practice of law in Ohio.
Today’s action was based on a nine-count complaint filed against Hoskins by the Office of Disciplinary Counsel alleging more than 40 violations of state disciplinary rules in the course of his practice as a private attorney between 1995 and 2002 and during his service on the bench beginning in February 2003. Following five days of evidentiary proceedings before a hearing panel and review of the panel’s findings by the Board of Commissioners on Grievance & Discipline, the board filed a report with the Court finding that Hoskins had engaged in the charged misconduct and recommending that he be permanently disbarred.
Hoskins filed multiple objections to the board’s findings and recommended sanction, and the Court heard oral arguments in the case on May 20.
In today’s decision, the Court unanimously affirmed the disciplinary board’s findings that Hoskins violated multiple provisions of the Code of Judicial Conduct while serving on the bench, including deliberately concealing his personal ownership interest in a building in which a court-related office contracted to lease space. The Court also found that Hoskins committed multiple rule violations by entering into discussions with a convicted felon, David Bliss, in which Hoskins suggested that Bliss’ purchase of the above-mentioned building at a greatly inflated price would be a legal way for Bliss to utilize money he claimed to have obtained years earlier through criminal activity and to have concealed from authorities while in prison. The Court noted that, because Bliss was secretly cooperating with a law enforcement “sting” operation at the time, the case record included tape recordings of conversations in which Hoskins gave Bliss detailed instructions on how to “launder” the alleged concealed funds from his earlier crimes through a stock transfer in which he would acquire ownership of Hoskins’ building.
With regard to the offenses alleged during his years in private practice, the Court adopted the board’s findings that Hoskins engaged in a pattern of misconduct involving fraud, deceit, dishonesty or misrepresentation and committed other ethical offenses by repeatedly making improper and unauthorized withdrawals of money for his own use from the estates of several relatives over whose assets he exercised fiduciary control as executor or administrator. The board also found that Hoskins failed to timely disburse estate assets to the rightful beneficiaries, failed to keep required records accounting for his withdrawals and disbursements from the estates, charged excessive legal fees, and filed incomplete, inaccurate and misleading reports with the probate court that concealed his improper diversion of funds from the estates to his own use.
In rejecting Hoskins’ claim that permanent disbarment was disproportionate to his offenses, particularly in light of the fact that he was acquitted of all criminal charges brought against him, the Court noted that he had engaged in a pattern of misconduct stretching over a period of almost 10 years and that his actions involved multiple rule violations, reflected dishonest and selfish motives, and had caused serious financial harm to his private clients and “incalculable harm to the public perception of the judiciary and attorneys.”
The Court concluded: “(P)ermanent disbarment of judges or attorneys for misconduct committed during service as a judge is not confined to misconduct that has resulted in a criminal conviction. ... This sanction is consistent with our precedent that in both judicial and attorney disciplinary proceedings, the standard of proof is ‘clear and convincing evidence’ rather than the ‘proof beyond a reasonable doubt’ standard required in criminal cases. ... Therefore, the mere fact that respondent has not been convicted of any criminal offense relating to this misconduct does not preclude disbarment.”
“We are persuaded that the ultimate sanction of permanent disbarment is warranted here. In addition to his improper public comment, failure to recuse himself, and favoritism, respondent has engaged in a pattern of serious misconduct, including deceit, conversion of funds for his personal use, and hiding his interests in and then trying to sell a building in exchange for laundered money. His misconduct as both a judge and an attorney spanned a protracted period of over 10 years, with much of it occurring after respondent had become judge. Clearly, these violations were not isolated incidents in an otherwise unblemished legal career. The persistent, serious, and varied nature of respondent’s malfeasance establish that only the full measure of our disciplinary authority can protect the public and restore the integrity of the judiciary and the bar, particularly given the principle that judges must be held to the highest standards of integrity and ethical conduct. Therefore, respondent is permanently disbarred from the practice of law in Ohio.”
Contacts
Jonathan A. Coughlan, 614.461.0256, for the Office of Disciplinary Counsel.
George Jonson, 513.241.4722, for Judge Jeffrey Hoskins.