Jump To

Top Caption Syllabus Combined Opinion

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

Feb. 26, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

Medina Cty. Bar Assn. v. Hall

Ohio Supreme Court

• Citations: 2026 Ohio 629

• Docket Number: 2025-1314

• Opinion

• Authorities (4)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (4.3K)

• PDF

Syllabus

Attorneys—Misconduct—Violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct—Conditionally stayed six-month suspension.

Combined Opinion

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as
Medina Cty. Bar Assn. v. Hall, Slip Opinion No. 2026-Ohio-629.]

NOTICE
This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in an
advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports. Readers are requested to
promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 65
South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographical or other
formal errors in the opinion, in order that corrections may be made before
the opinion is published.

SLIP OPINION NO. 2026-OHIO-629
MEDINA COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION v. HALL.
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it
may be cited as Medina Cty. Bar Assn. v. Hall, Slip Opinion No.
2026-Ohio-629.]
Attorneys—Misconduct—Violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct—
Conditionally stayed six-month suspension.
(No. 2025-1314—Submitted November 18, 2025—Decided February 26, 2026.)
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Professional Conduct
of the Supreme Court, No. 2025-002.

The per curiam opinion below was joined by KENNEDY, C.J., and FISCHER,
DEWINE, DETERS, HAWKINS, and SHANAHAN, JJ. BRUNNER, J., did not participate.

Per Curiam.
{¶ 1} Respondent, Eric Dorman Hall, of Medina, Ohio, Attorney
Registration No. 0067566, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1997.
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

{¶ 2} In March 2012, we suspended Hall from the practice of law for two
years with six months conditionally stayed and ordered him to serve a one-year
period of monitored probation. His misconduct in that case consisted of failing to
perform the agreed-upon work after accepting retainers from numerous clients,
failing to respond to clients’ efforts to communicate with him, and misrepresenting
to a client that he had filed a complaint in court. See Disciplinary Counsel v. Hall,
2012-Ohio-783. In September 2015, we reinstated Hall to the practice of law and
placed him on probation. Disciplinary Counsel v. Hall, 2015-Ohio-3871. We
terminated his probation on February 3, 2017. Disciplinary Counsel v. Hall, 2017-
Ohio-393.
{¶ 3} In a January 2025 complaint, relator, Medina County Bar Association,
alleged that Hall failed to provide competent representation to a client, neglected
the client’s criminal matter, and failed to reasonably consult with the client about
the means by which the client’s objectives would be accomplished. After a three-
member panel of the Board of Professional Conduct rejected the parties’ consent-
to-discipline agreement, the parties entered into stipulations of fact and misconduct
and stipulated to five exhibits.
{¶ 4} By agreement of the parties, the matter proceeded to a hearing before
two of the three commissioners of the board assigned to hear the case, with the third
commissioner participating in the consideration of the matter after the hearing.
Based on the parties’ stipulations and the evidence presented, including Hall’s
testimony, the panel found that Hall committed the charged misconduct and
recommended that he be suspended from the practice of law for six months with
the suspension fully stayed on the conditions that he (1) engage in no further
misconduct, (2) serve six months of monitored probation focused on the
management of all criminal cases in which he serves as court-appointed counsel,
and (3) complete six hours of continuing legal education (“CLE”) focused on
lawyer communication and diligence in addition to the requirements of Gov.Bar R.

2
January Term, 2026

X. The board adopted the panel’s report and recommendation, and the parties have
jointly waived objections. We adopt the board’s findings of misconduct and
recommended sanction.
FACTS AND MISCONDUCT
{¶ 5} On March 8, 2024, Charles Beekman, a homeless person, was arrested
for threatening domestic violence in violation of R.C. 2919.25(C), a fourth-degree
misdemeanor. The maximum penalty for the charged offense was 30 days in jail
and a fine of $250. See R.C. 2929.24(A)(4). During Beekman’s March 11
arraignment in the Medina County Municipal Court, the judge appointed Hall as
defense counsel. The court also scheduled Beekman’s bench trial for March 26 and
set bond on the condition that he provide a current residential address to which he
could be released. Beekman was unable to provide a current residential address
and remained in jail.
{¶ 6} Following Beekman’s arraignment and without consulting him, Hall
filed a jury demand and discovery request. Consequently, the March 26 trial date
was vacated and rescheduled for May 2, 2024. Hall made no effort to determine
whether Beekman remained in jail following his arraignment or whether the court
had a procedure for releasing a defendant who lacked a current residential address.
{¶ 7} Hall did not meet with Beekman and had no communication with him
by any means during his incarceration. On April 5, Hall filed a motion for an
expedited change-of-plea and sentencing hearing without obtaining Beekman’s
consent. Later that day, the municipal court denied Hall’s motion but sua sponte
modified Beekman’s bail conditions, allowing him to be released without a current
residential address.
{¶ 8} At Beekman’s request, Hall filed a motion to withdraw as counsel on
April 23. The following day, Hall filed a motion for evaluation of Beekman’s
competency. The municipal court denied the motion to withdraw but granted the

3
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

motion for a competency evaluation. On April 25, Beekman filed a grievance
against Hall with relator.
{¶ 9} Beekman submitted to the court-ordered competency examination.
At a June 5 hearing, the municipal court considered the competency report, which
noted that Beekman had been found to be not competent to assist in his defense and
recommended that he receive inpatient treatment at a mental-health facility for 30
days to restore his competency. Beekman himself objected to that
recommendation—though Hall did not. Hall also failed to inform the court that
Beekman had already been confined for 28 days or argue that the case should be
dismissed because the maximum sentence for the charged offense was just 30 days.
Although a probation officer present at the hearing informed the court that
Beekman had already served 28 days in jail, the court ordered that Beekman be
taken into custody and transported to the treatment facility.
{¶ 10} On June 6, the municipal court determined that it had lacked any
ability to take further action on the charge against Beekman given the maximum
penalty. The court therefore vacated its inpatient-treatment order and sua sponte
dismissed the charge.
{¶ 11} On these facts, the board found by clear and convincing evidence
that Hall violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.1 (requiring a lawyer to provide competent
representation to a client), 1.3 (requiring a lawyer to act with reasonable diligence
in representing a client), and 1.4(a)(2) (requiring a lawyer to reasonably consult
with a client about the means by which the client’s objectives are to be
accomplished). We adopt these findings of misconduct.
RECOMMENDED SANCTION
{¶ 12} When imposing sanctions for attorney misconduct, we consider all
relevant factors, including the ethical duties that the lawyer violated, the
aggravating and mitigating factors listed in Gov.Bar R. V(13), and the sanctions
imposed in similar cases.

4
January Term, 2026

{¶ 13} In this case, the parties have agreed and the board has found that two
aggravating factors are present—namely, Hall’s prior discipline and the harm he
caused to a vulnerable client. See Gov.Bar R. V(13)(B)(1) and (8). The parties
have also agreed and the board has found that three mitigating factors are present:
the absence of a dishonest or selfish motive, Hall’s cooperative attitude toward the
proceedings after the complaint was filed, and his good reputation as demonstrated
by letters submitted by four attorneys. See Gov.Bar R. V(13)(C)(2), (4), and (5).
We also note that Hall presented evidence indicating that he is one of just two
attorneys selected to serve in the Valor Court established by the Medina Municipal
Court to address problems that are unique to military veterans.
{¶ 14} In addition, Hall testified that after relator commenced its
investigation, Hall learned that the municipal court has a policy that allows
defendants without a residential address to be released on bail. Now that he is
aware of that policy, Hall testified, he has taken steps to ensure that he will not
make the same mistakes again. Specifically, when filing a motion for bond on
behalf of unhoused clients, he now requests that they be released under the
municipal court’s policy. He also now checks the jail roster daily to make sure that
he knows where his clients are, and he visits clients in jail and keeps track of how
long they have been there. He emphasized that he pays particularly close attention
to low-degree misdemeanor cases due to the short duration of the maximum
sentences for those offenses.
{¶ 15} In determining the appropriate sanction to recommend for Hall’s
misconduct, the board found three recent cases—Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn. v.
Brown, 2024-Ohio-2789; Lorain Cty. Bar Assn. v. Haynes, 2020-Ohio-1570; and
Mahoning Cty. Bar Assn. v. Vivo, 2019-Ohio-1858—to be compelling precedent.
{¶ 16} In Brown, the attorney neglected a client’s legal matter, failed to
keep the client reasonably informed about the status of the matter, failed to comply
as soon as practicable with the client’s reasonable requests for information, and

5
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

failed to protect the client’s interests upon the termination of her representation.
Relying on Haynes, Vivo, and two other cases, we suspended Brown from the
practice of law for six months with the suspension fully stayed on the condition that
she engage in no further misconduct. Brown at ¶ 19-20.
{¶ 17} In Haynes, the attorney failed to finalize a client’s qualified
domestic-relations order in a timely manner, failed to keep the client reasonably
informed about the status of the matter, and failed to respond to the client’s repeated
requests for information. Two aggravating factors were present: Haynes had
caused economic harm to the client, and Haynes was publicly reprimanded 20 years
earlier for neglecting another client’s legal matter. Haynes at ¶ 1, 13. In addition
to the mitigating factors present in this case and Brown, Haynes also made
restitution to his client—though the majority of that restitution was paid by his
professional-liability insurer. See id. at ¶ 14. We imposed a conditionally stayed
six-month suspension for Haynes’s misconduct. Id. at ¶ 18.
{¶ 18} Like Hall, the attorney in Vivo failed to provide competent
representation to a client, failed to act with reasonable diligence in handling the
client’s matter, and failed to consult with the client about the means by which her
objectives would be accomplished. The sole aggravating factor present was the
conditionally stayed one-year suspension we had imposed on Vivo less than seven
years earlier for similar misconduct. Vivo, 2019-Ohio-1858 at ¶ 1, 9. Mitigating
factors consisted of Vivo’s timely, good-faith effort to make restitution to his client
and his full cooperation in the disciplinary proceeding. Id. We suspended Vivo for
six months with the entire suspension stayed on the conditions that he complete six
hours of CLE focused on law-office management and engage in no further
misconduct; we also ordered him to serve a one-year period of monitored probation.
Id. at ¶ 14.
{¶ 19} In light of the sanctions imposed in Brown, Haynes, and Vivo, the
board recommends that we suspend Hall for six months with the entire suspension

6
January Term, 2026

stayed on the conditions that he (1) engage in no further misconduct, (2) serve six
months of probation monitored by a licensed Ohio attorney in good standing who
shall periodically review all criminal cases in which Hall serves as court-appointed
counsel, (3) compete six hours of CLE focused on the topics of lawyer
communication and diligence in addition to the requirements of Gov.Bar R. X, and
(4) pay the costs of these proceedings.
{¶ 20} Recognizing that Hall has taken appropriate remedial steps to ensure
that he will not repeat his misconduct, we agree that a six-month suspension fully
stayed on the conditions recommended by the board is the appropriate sanction in
this case.
CONCLUSION
{¶ 21} Accordingly, Eric Dorman Hall is hereby suspended from the
practice of law in Ohio for six months with the entire suspension stayed on the
conditions that he (1) commit no further misconduct, (2) serve six months of
monitored probation, in accordance with Gov.Bar R. V(21), focused on
management of all criminal cases in which Hall serves as court-appointed counsel,
(3) complete six hours of CLE focused on lawyer communication and diligence in
addition to the requirements of Gov.Bar R. X, and (4) pay the costs of these
disciplinary proceedings. If Hall fails to comply with a condition of the stay, the
stay will be revoked and he will be required to serve the full six-month suspension.
Costs are taxed to Hall.
Judgment accordingly.

Patricia A. Walker, Bar Counsel, and Sara M. Costanzo, Associate Bar
Counsel, for relator.
David V. Gedrock, for respondent.

7