Attorney Suspended for Neglecting Case, Lying to Judge

The Supreme Court of Ohio today suspended a Pickerington attorney for two years, with six months stayed, for taking money from three clients, not performing work, lying to a judge, and masquerading as an assistant to relay false information to his clients.

A Supreme Court majority suspended Jeffrey D. Hunter and required him to pay $15,000 in restitution to two former clients. He must also undergo an assessment by the Ohio Lawyers Assistance Program (OLAP) and comply with any treatment and counseling recommendations stemming from the evaluation.

Justices R. Patrick DeWine, Joseph T. Deters, Daniel R. Hawkins, and Megan E. Shanahan joined the per curiam opinion.

In a separate opinion, Chief Justice Sharon L. Kennedy noted the Court has consistently held that accepting payments from clients and not performing that work is tantamount to theft, and the appropriate sanction for such conduct is disbarment. She disagreed with the majority’s finding that Hunter cooperated with the disciplinary proceedings and ultimately would have permanently disbarred him.

Justice Patrick F. Fischer stated he concurred with most of Chief Justice Kennedy’s opinion, but found that Hunter should be indefinitely suspended.

Justice Jennifer Brunner did not participate in the case.

Lawyer Misses Court Appearances, Lies to Judge
The Office of Disciplinary Counsel filed a complaint against Hunter with the Board of Professional Conduct based on Hunter’s handling of three criminal clients between November 2020 and March 2024. This included his 2023 representation of Miles Gibson, who in two separate cases was charged with aggravated murder, murder, and other felonies, his 2020 agreement with Kerry Hanawalt to represent her incarcerated brother in a futile attempt to shorten his sentence, and his representation of Derek Shaffer in his postconviction appeal.

Gibson’s mother, Lillian Lancaster, paid Hunter a $12,500 flat fee in June 2023 to represent her son. Hunter notified the trial court that he was representing Gibson. But Hunter did not appear at Gibson’s first hearing , scheduled for July 10, or for a rescheduled first hearing on Aug 22. Because Hunter was not in court, the trial judge ordered Hunter to appear at a September “show-cause” hearing to explain his absence. The day after he missed the Aug 22 hearing, Hunter appeared in court and told the judge he missed the scheduled hearing because he was out of town at his mother-in-law’s funeral.

The trial court scheduled Gibson’s next hearing for October. The court told him he would need to provide proof of his travel or funeral attendance at the show-cause hearing. Hunter did not appear at the hearing. Hunter later claimed he was at the show-cause hearing, but the judge was not. The court rescheduled the hearing and sent Hunter a letter stating his attendance was mandatory. In the meantime, Hunter failed to appear at another hearing on behalf of his client, Gibson.

At the show-cause hearing, the judge confronted Hunter about missing the court dates and conferring with his client. Hunter alleged he met with Gibson during the week of the hearing he missed. The judge confronted Hunter with evidence that Hunter had not met with Gibson since he visited him in jail on July 10.

The trial court gave Hunter until October to provide evidence that he had met with Gibson, but Hunter did not offer proof that the two met. Hunter also changed his story about why he missed the Aug. 22 hearing, asserting he was at the funeral of a friend, not his mother-in-law.. When asked to provide proof of his attendance, Hunter could provide nothing more than a photo of his wife’s luggage tag for a flight on Aug. 21, the day before the court hearing.

The judge disqualified Hunter from Gibson’s case and filed a grievance against Hunter with the disciplinary counsel. Two weeks later, in November 2023, Lancaster, Gibson’s mother, learned the court had removed Hunter. He told Lancaster he would file a motion to be reinstated, but he did not. He also never told Gibson that he was no longer his lawyer. Lancaster sought a refund of her $12,500 from Hunter. He had not refunded the fee at the time of his disciplinary hearing.

Hunter and the disciplinary counsel stipulated that Hunter violated seven professional conduct rules while representing Gibson, including knowingly making a false statement to a court and requiring a lawyer to promptly refund any unearned fees.

Hunter Masquerades as a Paralegal to Relay False Information to Clients
In two other cases, Hunter acknowledged he committed 12 more instances of misconduct by accepting fees and not completing work on behalf of his clients.

Kerry Hanawalt hired Hunter to seek the early release of her incarcerated brother, James Wills. Hunter charged Hanawalt $2,500 and then inaccurately advised her on when Wills would be eligible for release, and falsely stated that his sentence could be reduced if the victim’s family agreed to the reduction.

While accepting payment from Hanawalt in November 2020, Hunter did not notify the court that he represented Wills or file anything on Wills’ behalf until April 2023. Shortly after hiring him, Hanawalt sent text messages to Hunter seeking updates on the case. Hunter failed to respond to one text and provided Hanawalt with false information in others. She then requested a refund in May 2021.

In response, Hunter met with Hanawalt, and the representation continued. Two months later, in August 2021, Hanawalt received a text message from Hunter’s phone. The message was purportedly sent by a paralegal named “Yolanda Harris.” The message falsely stated that Hunter filed a motion on Wills’ behalf. Hunter later admitted he wrote the message, and the disciplinary counsel found no evidence of a person named Yolanda Harris working for Hunter.

Hunter continued to lie to Hanawalt about the status of her brother’s case. She filed a grievance against him and reiterated a request for a refund. When the disciplinary counsel inquired about the refund, Hunter sent another text to Hanawalt claiming to be “Harris.” The text stated that Hunter attempted to send a refund check a couple of years ago, but it was returned because Hanawalt had not signed it.

In September 2023, he finally provided Hanawalt with a refund.

Hunter used the same “Harris” ruse to respond to the family of a third client, Derek Shaffer, who paid him $2,500 to work on a postconviction appeal. Hunter performed little to no work on the case and did not provide Shaffer’s parents with a requested refund by the time of his disciplinary hearing.

The Board of Professional Conduct found Hunter committed the 19 rule violations. It recommended the Court suspend Hunter for two years, with six months stayed, and require Hunter to pay restitution, undergo the OLAP assessment, and comply with any treatment plans.

Supreme Court Considered Recommended Sanction
When considering the sanction in a disciplinary case, the Court considers aggravating circumstances that could increase the penalty and mitigating factors that could lead to a lesser sanction. Among the aggravating circumstances, the board found Hunter made false statements and acted deceptively during the disciplinary process. As a mitigating circumstance, it found Hunter cooperated in disciplinary hearings.

The Court stated that Hunter’s “long list of lies and deficiencies in communication with his clients” violated several ethical rules.

“His failures to act promptly or seek help from other lawyers while representing Wills, Gibson, and Derek Shaffer reflect a serious lack of the competence and diligence that are cornerstones of the legal profession,” the opinion stated.

The Court majority compared Hunter’s conduct to three other attorneys sanctioned for similar rule violations and concluded a two-year suspension with six months stayed was appropriate. It also ordered Hunter to refund Lancaster $12,500 and Shaffer’s parents $2,500 within 90 days and pay the cost of the disciplinary proceedings.

Lawyer Should Be Disbarred, Chief Justice Maintained
In her separate opinion, Chief Justice Kennedy wrote that for more than 40 years, the Court has found disbarment to be the “normal sanction” for a lawyer who steals client money and neglects client matters.

“Based on this court’s precedent  – and our responsibility to protect the public – the appropriate sanction in this case is permanent disbarment,” she wrote.

The chief justice disagreed with the board’s finding that Hunter cooperated with the disciplinary proceedings. She wrote that the board contradicted itself by finding that Hunter had lied to disciplinary counsel, yet was considered to have cooperated. In cases where attorneys who committed similar misconduct to Hunter were not disbarred, she noted that those lawyers presented many more mitigating circumstances.

2024-1720. Disciplinary Counsel v. Hunter, Slip Opinion No. 2025-Ohio-2406.

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, but only for noteworthy cases. Opinion summaries are not to be considered as official headnotes or syllabi of court opinions. The full text of this and other court opinions are available online.