An attorney who knew his law license was suspended in Ohio but still argued a case before a state appeals court was given another suspension today.

In a 6-1 decision, the Ohio Supreme Court suspended David C. Eisler of Seattle for two years with the second year stayed if he meets certain conditions.

Eisler was barred from practicing law in Ohio on Nov. 13, 2012, because he hadn’t met his continuing legal education (CLE) requirements. He received notice of this suspension on Nov. 20, a week before he was scheduled to argue before the Ninth District Court of Appeals.

Eisler said he decided to travel to the Ohio court to address the problem in person. However, he did not tell the appellate court about his suspension and went ahead with presenting his oral argument. The opposing lawyer disclosed Eisler’s suspension to the court, which prohibited him from making a rebuttal argument and reported the misconduct to the state disciplinary counsel.

Eisler violated two professional conduct rules by defying the legal profession’s regulations in Ohio and by engaging in conduct harmful to the administration of justice.

Eisler violated two professional conduct rules by defying the legal profession’s regulations in Ohio and by engaging in conduct harmful to the administration of justice.

Today’s per curiam opinion noted that Eisler had been suspended three other times, from 2005 through 2009, for failing to register as an attorney in the state. He was later reinstated in each instance. He also was fined at least four times between 1993 and 2010 for not complying with CLE rules.

The court adopted the findings of the state’s attorney disciplinary board that Eisler violated two professional conduct rules by defying the legal profession’s regulations in Ohio and by engaging in conduct harmful to the administration of justice. (The name of the attorney disciplinary board – formerly the Board of Commissioners on Grievances & Discipline – was changed in January to the Board of Professional Conduct.)

The court explained that it has imposed indefinite suspensions in disciplinary cases involving similar violations. However, in those cases the attorneys typically didn’t respond during the disciplinary investigation and sometimes failed to show up for hearings. Eisler, though, replied to the disciplinary counsel’s initial letter and formal complaint, admitted his misconduct, and worked with disciplinary counsel on proposed agreements, though they were later rejected.

Concluding that Eisler’s lapses were not as egregious as those who have received indefinite suspensions, the court concluded that a one-year effective suspension for Eisler if he satisfies specific requirements is appropriate.

Joining the majority opinion were Justices Paul E. Pfeifer, Terrence O’Donnell, Judith Ann Lanzinger, Sharon L. Kennedy, Judith L. French, and William M. O’Neill.

Chief Justice Maureen O’Connor would have indefinitely suspended Eisler from practicing law in Ohio. An indefinite suspension would have prohibited Eisler from applying for reinstatement to practice law in the state for at least two years.

2014-0970. Disciplinary Counsel v. Eisler, Slip Opinion No. 2015-Ohio-967.

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.

PDF files may be viewed, printed, and searched using the free Acrobat^® Reader
Acrobat Reader is a trademark of Adobe Systems Incorporated.