OPINION AND ORDER
D. MINTON, JR. CHIEF JUSTICE.
Kentucky Bar Association has filed a Petition for Reciprocal
Discipline under Supreme Court Rule ("SCR") 3.435.
For the reasons set forth below, we grant the petition and
permanently disbar Robert Hansford Hoskins.
OPINION AND ORDER.
Supreme Court of Ohio entered an order on May 23, 2017,
permanently disbarring Robert Hoskins from the practice of
law. As a consequence of his disbarment in Ohio, the KBA
moved for this Court to order Hoskins to show cause, if he
has any, why he should not face identical punishment in
Kentucky. We issued a Show Cause Order on June 9, 2017, and
Hoskins had until June 29, 2017, to respond. He failed to
respond to the order, and Hoskins, has presented no evidence
to support an alternative disposition, so we grant the
KBA's Petition for Reciprocal Discipline in compliance
with SCR 3.435.
Ohio Supreme Court Order stems from a five-count charge
levied against Hoskins for violating the Ohio Rules of
One found that Hoskins had violated Ohio Rules 1.4(a)(3),
3.3(a)(1), 3.4(c), 4.1(a), 5.5(a), 8.4(c), 8.4(h), and
8.1(b), by continuing to represent a client in a legal matter
after being suspended by the Ohio Supreme Court. Hoskins
continued practicing law after his suspension by
impersonating another attorney in communications with
opposing counsel and the court.
Two held that Hoskins violated Ohio Rules 4.1(a), 5.5(a), and
8.4(d), by filing a complaint on behalf of his client,
participating in a scheduling conference with the court, and
identifying himself as counsel for the plaintiff, even though
he had been suspended from the practice of law for nearly two
months. At a deposition, he was asked by opposing counsel if
he had been reinstated and Hoskins asserted that he had.
Opposing counsel's partner contacted the Office of
Disciplinary Counsel and was informed that Hoskins in fact
had not been reinstated. This resulted in the judge staying
all further proceedings and directing Hoskins to advise his
client of his suspension.
Three found that Hoskins violated Ohio Rule 5.5(a). While
suspended from the practice of law, Hoskins filed an
adult-adoption petition, attended a hearing in the matter,
identified himself as an attorney, entered an appearance, and
examined the petitioners and the adoptee.
Four held that Hoskins violated Ohio Rules 1.4(a)(3), 3.4(c),
and 8.4(c), by his knowing failure to notify his client, Mr.
Hanks, of his suspension from the practice of law, and for
his dishonesty when questioned about the suspension. Hoskins
also violated Ohio Rules 1.4(a), 1.16(d), and 1.16(e).
Five found that Hoskins had violated Ohio Rules 1.4(a)(3),
1.4(a)(4), 1.16(d), 1.16(e), 3.4(c), and 8.1(b), by failing
promptly to respond to a client's request for an itemized
statement and a refund of the unearned portion of her
retainer. Hoskins ultimately sent the client a refund, but
did not respond to letters of inquiry regarding the bar
compliant filed by the client.
Count Six held that Hoskins violated Ohio Rule 5.5(a) by
continuing to represent Dr. Howard Covert while under
suspension from the practice of law.
KBA notes, Kentucky's Rules of Professional Conduct
contain identical or similar versions of almost all the Ohio
Rules violated by Hoskins.
Court finds that
1. There is no evidence of fraud in the Ohio ...