The Supreme Court of Ohio today indefinitely suspended a Kettering attorney convicted of violent acts directed at his family, and for crimes related to publicly making vulgar and demeaning threats to his ex-wife and an attorney.

In a per curiam opinion, the Court suspended Aaron Hartley and imposed five conditions he must meet to be reinstated to the practice of law. Hartley has been under an interim suspension since November 2021 following convictions for assault, disorderly conduct, telecommunications harassment, and other crimes.

Chief Justice Sharon L. Kennedy and Justices Patrick F. Fischer, R. Patrick DeWine, Michael P. Donnelly, Melody Stewart, and Joseph T. Deters joined the opinion. Justice Jennifer Brunner did not participate in the case.

Lawyer Pleads to Several Crimes
Hartley’s illegal acts took place between January 2020 and October 2021. The Office of Disciplinary Counsel filed a complaint against Hartley in February 2023 charging him with six violations of professional conduct rules based on his misdemeanor convictions.

In January 2020, Hartley was charged with misdemeanor assault at the home of a woman whose adult son he had represented in a legal matter. Hartley was reportedly heavily intoxicated. He was found guilty and was sentenced to 180 days in jail, with 170 days suspended. Additional penalties were imposed, and he was required to pay $2,000 in restitution for damaging the woman’s home.

In August 2020, Hartley got into an argument with his wife, identified in court records as “C.H.” He allegedly threw her down and stepped on her neck. He was charged with misdemeanor domestic violence, and the next week, C.H. filed for divorce. He pleaded no contest to an amended charge of disorderly conduct.

Then in October 2020, Hartley was again charged for a violent act. Hartley took his two daughters, ages 8 and 6, to his law office. At the office, he grabbed the older daughter by her neck until she was unable to breathe. The girl’s mother obtained a civil protective order order to keep Hartley away from the girls. He was charged with domestic violence, child endangering, and assault, and pleaded no contest to disorderly conduct.

Harassment of Ex-Wife and Lawyer Following Arrests
A year after being charged for assaulting C.H., Hartley made a series of posts and comments on Facebook aimed at her. He made several vulgar references about his ex-wife, and accused her of extortion and adultery. He also posted information revealing her maiden name and current last name.

He was charged with violating a protection order and telecommunications harassment. He pleaded guilty to telecommunications harassment.

He also began harassing the mother of his two children. The woman hired attorney Michelle Maciorowski to seek to end their shared parenting agreement. The woman sought full custody of the two girls and to have Hartley pay child support.

Hartley made public threats against Maciorowski on his Facebook account and called her vulgar names. He also stated he was “still waiting on [her] thanks for a bullet not being placed in [her] brain.” He was charged with telecommunications harassment and menacing, and pleaded no contest to menacing in exchange for dropping the harassment charges.

Board Reports Challenges of Disciplinary Hearing
Following the disciplinary counsel’s 2023 complaint, a Board of Professional Conduct panel conducted a hearing in which they reported that Hartley did not provide clear and definite answers, and frequently rambled on without directly answering questions. The panel described Hartley as an “arrogant, trying, taxing, and exasperating witness.”

A board-appointed psychiatrist evaluated Hartley, and at the hearing, he was described as having autistic-spectrum disorder, a personality disorder with borderline features, a trauma and stressor-related disorder, and a history of alcohol use disorder, which was in remission. Hartley testified that some of the conditions, such as autism, contributed to his criminal conduct.

The board did not consider his mental health conditions as a mitigating factor because there was no evidence Hartley engaged in any sustained period of treatment.

The board found Hartley committed several rule violations, including committing illegal acts that reflect adversely on his honesty and trustworthiness, and engaging in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law.

Court Considered Appropriate Sanction
When recommending a sanction to the Supreme Court, the board examined prior cases where attorneys engaged in similar misconduct. The Court’s opinion noted the board “looked to cases involving attorneys whose untreated substance-abuse disorders contributed to their multiple criminal convictions.”

Based on prior decisions, the Court concluded the appropriate sanction is an indefinite suspension, with no credit for time served under the interim suspension, and a requirement that he meet several conditions to be reinstated.

Hartley must undergo a psychological or psychiatric evaluation within three months of applying for reinstatement; provide evidence of compliance with any recommended treatment; and receive a prognosis from an independent qualified health care professional that he can return to the competent, ethical, and professional practice of law. He must also provide proof of a sustained period of treatment of the diagnosed conditions identified during his disciplinary hearing evaluation, and proof that he complied with all conditions of probation imposed as part of his criminal cases. He was also ordered to pay the costs of the disciplinary proceedings.

2024-1098. Disciplinary Counsel v. Hartley, Slip Opinion No. 2024-Ohio-5232.

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.