Opinion
2023-SC-0202-KB
09-28-2023
KENTUCKY BAR ASSOCIATION, Movant v. Michael Todd HOGAN, Respondent
OPINION AND ORDER
Michael Todd Hogan (Hogan), Kentucky Bar Association (KBA) Number 85537, was admitted to the practice of law in the Commonwealth of Kentucky on October 21, 1994. Hogan is currently suspended from the practice of law pursuant to Supreme Court Rule (SCR) 3.166. In this default case under SCR 3.210, the KBA Board of Governors (Board) recommends this Court find Hogan guilty of violating SCR 3.130 (8.4)(b) and permanently disbar Hogan from the practice of law in the Commonwealth. The Board also recommends that Hogan be required to pay the costs in this action. We agree with and adopt the Board's recommendation.
Hogan's bar roster address is P.O. Box 1083, Louisa, Kentucky 41230.
The Board voted 16-0 that Hogan is guilty of violating SCR 3.130 (8.4)(b) and to recommend permanent disbarment for his discipline.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
A. Prior Disciplinary Proceedings
On April 14, 2022, in KBA File 21-DIS-0138, Hogan received a private admonition for violating SCR 3.130 (1.3) (diligence), SCR 3.130 (1.4)(a)(3) and (4) (communication) and SCR 3.130 (8.1)(b) (failing to respond to a lawful demand for information from a disciplinary authority). Although not a disciplinary suspension, in accordance with SCR 3.166, Hogan was automatically suspended from the practice of law in this Commonwealth on March 31, 2022. That suspension occurred after Hogan entered his guilty plea in United States v. Hogan , Criminal Action No. 3:21-CR-11-GFVT-MAS-1, United States District Court, Eastern District of Kentucky, Central Division, Frankfort, to the charge of conspiracy to commit wire fraud and to the charge of committing federal program fraud, in violation of Title 18, United States Code (U.S.C.), Sections 1349 and 666(a)(1)(A), respectively.
SCR 3.130 (1.3) states: "A lawyer shall act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client."
SCR 3.130 (1.4)(a)(3) and (4) state: "A lawyer shall ... keep the client reasonably informed about the status of the matter [and] promptly comply with reasonable requests for information."
SCR 3.130 (8.1)(b) states in relevant part: "[A] lawyer in connection ... with a disciplinary matter, shall not ... knowingly fail to respond to a lawful demand for information from an admissions or disciplinary authority, except that this Rule does not require disclosure of information otherwise protected by Rule 1.6."
B. Hogan's Federal Indictment, Guilty Plea, Sentence, and Restitution
In May 2020, the Kentucky State Auditor issued a report identifying possible misuse of public funds by Hogan, including paying bonuses to his wife from a delinquent tax fund, and referred its findings to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (F.B.I.). Hogan responded to the report stating that his payments to his wife did not violate any legal or ethical guidelines, but that he would follow the State Auditor's recommendations. Hogan was indicted on June 3, 2021 in United States District Court for the Eastern Division of Kentucky. United States v. Hogan , Criminal Action No. 3:21-CR-11-GFVT-MAS-1. The indictment contained fifteen counts: one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud, 18 U.S.C. § 1349 ; nine counts of wire fraud, 18 U.S.C. § 1343 ; and five counts of theft or bribery of a federally funded program, 18 U.S.C. § 666(a)(1)(A). As part of his June 2021 conditions of release, Hogan was prohibited from prosecuting cases on behalf of the Lawrence County Attorney Office.
The United States and Hogan entered into a plea agreement in March 2022. According to the plea agreement, Hogan conspired to commit wire fraud by issuing checks from a delinquent tax account for the Lawrence County Attorney's Office, the statements for which were sent to Hogan's personal residence; and he defrauded the Lawrence County Child Support Enforcement Office by billing the program for more hours than he actually worked. As stated within the plea agreement, Hogan admitted that the following facts are true:
(a) Beginning in 2003, Michael Hogan was the County Attorney of Lawrence County, Kentucky. As County Attorney, Michael Hogan had several responsibilities, including attending the District Court, prosecuting criminal cases in the county District Court, attending and representing the fiscal court, collecting delinquent taxes, and handling child support enforcement. In addition, he maintained a private law practice.
(b) As the Lawrence County Attorney, Michael Hogan was responsible for the collection of delinquent taxes in Lawrence County, and the Lawrence County Attorney's Office ("LCAO") was compensated for that work via payments from the Lawrence County Clerk's office. The LCAO deposited payments from the Lawrence County Clerk's office in a delinquent tax bank account ... labeled "Lawrence County Attorney Delinquent Tax" .... Bank statements for this account were sent to the Hogan's personal residence.
(c) Between in or about March 2013 and April 2020, Michael Hogan paid his spouse and co-defendant, Joy Hogan, dozens of payments from the LCAO delinquent tax account and disguised these payments as "bonuses." Michael Hogan knew some of these payments were not reasonable in amount, nor beneficial to the public. He personally benefited from
these payments. In making these illegitimate payments, Michael Hogan agreed with his spouse and co-defendant to commit wire fraud, and caused to be transmitted by means of wire communications in interstate commerce digital images of the referenced checks. Michael Hogan was the organizer and leader of this wire fraud scheme and directed his spouse's participation in the scheme.
(d) As the Lawrence County Attorney, Michael Hogan was the contracted attorney for the Lawrence County Child Support Enforcement Office ("LCCSEO"), an agency within the Kentucky Cabinet for Health and Family Services, an agency of the Commonwealth of Kentucky. Between July 1, 2019, and June 30, 2020, LCCSEO received over $10,000 of funds under federal programs, grants, and subsidies. Michael Hogan was paid $55 per hour for hours spent working for the LCCSEO, and he had to bill for his hours spent working on LCCSEO matters. Beginning in or around July 2017, Michael T. Hogan had to bill for his hours in greater detail and attach a list of cases worked on during the relevant time period.
(e) Between July 2015 and June 2020, Michael Hogan billed, on average, more than 65 hours per month to LCCSEO, without working all of those hours. As a result, between July I, 2019, through June 30, 2020, in Franklin County and Lawrence County, Michael Hogan, as an agent of state government, knowingly obtained by fraud and intentionally misapplied more than $5,000 of funds owned by and under the care, custody, and control of LCCSEO and the Commonwealth of Kentucky.
As part of the plea agreement, Hogan agreed to resign as the Lawrence County Attorney. In September 2022, Hogan was sentenced to forty-two months on each charge, to run concurrently, for a total of forty-two months in prison. According to the United States District Court's January 2023 order, Hogan must also make restitution totaling $598,677. The $365,550 restitution to the Lawrence County Attorney's Office is owed jointly and severally by Hogan and Joy Hogan. The $232,127 restitution to the Lawrence County Child Support Enforcement Office is owed solely by Hogan.
On the wire fraud charge, Hogan faced up to twenty years in prison, a fine of no more than $250,000 or twice the amount of gain or loss, and a term of supervised release of not more than three years. On the federal program theft charge, Hogan faced up to ten years in prison, a fine of no more than $250,000, and a term of supervised release of not more than three years. Within the United States’ recommended sentencing guidelines calculations, it recommended that the offense level be increased by two levels for Hogan's role as the organizer and leader of the criminal activity; be increased by two levels for abuse of a position of public trust or use of a special skill; unless Hogan committed another crime, obstructed justice, or violated a court order, be decreased by two levels for Hogan's acceptance of responsibility; and if the offense level determined by this two-level decrease were level 16 or greater, the United States would move to decrease the offense level by one additional level based upon Hogan's timely notice of intent to plead guilty. At sentencing, the United States District Court granted the United States’ oral motion for the United States Sentencing Guidelines § 3E1.1 Third Level Reduction for acceptance of responsibility.
Under federal law, Hogan must serve 85 percent of his prison sentence. Upon release he will be under the supervision of the U.S. Probation Office for three years.
C. Violation Charged in KBA File 20-DIS-0046
Disciplinary action was initiated against Hogan after he entered his guilty plea to one count of conspiring to commit wire fraud and to one count of committing federal program fraud in United States v. Hogan , Criminal Action No. 3:21-CR-11-GFVT-MAS-1. Hogan was charged with violating SCR 3.130 (8.4)(b) which states that "[i]t is professional misconduct for a lawyer to ... commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects." Following personal service by the sheriff of the KBA File 20-DIS-0116 Charge on November 23, 2022, Hogan failed to respond to the Charge. The Board of Governors moves this Court to impose discipline under SCR 3.210. The Board of Governors and the Office of Bar Counsel agree that the appropriate sanction for Hogan's criminal financial misconduct is permanent disbarment.
The Inquiry Commission issued an Amended Charge on November 9, 2022. The Disciplinary Clerk mailed the First Amended Charge to Hogan at his bar roster address, service address, and an alternate address, via certified mail, on November 9, 2022. The three mailings were returned with a notation "Return to Sender, Unable to Forward." Hogan was personally served by the sheriff on November 23, 2022. Hogan did not file an answer or otherwise respond. The Inquiry Commission submitted the record to the Board on February 20, 2023.
ANALYSIS
In Pepper v. Kentucky Bar Ass'n , a money laundering case, we again engaged in a review of cases involving criminal financial misconduct. We noted that other reviews of cases involving lawyer dishonesty in financial transactions revealed permanent disbarment is often the proper sanction when the circumstances involve a form of theft. , ,
632 S.W.3d 312 (Ky. 2021).
Id. at 321 (citing Kentucky Bar Ass'n v. Goble , 424 S.W.3d 423 (Ky. 2014), and Kentucky Bar Ass'n v. Rorrer , 222 S.W.3d 223 (Ky. 2007) ).
See also Huffman v. Kentucky Bar Ass'n , 422 S.W.3d 230 (Ky. 2013) (stating "permanent disbarment is the near-routine sanction for gross financial misconduct").
Twelve cases involving criminal financial misconduct which resulted in the attorney's permanent disbarment follow: Fitzgerald v. Kentucky Bar Ass'n , 381 S.W.3d 318 (Ky. 2012) (permanent disbarment requested); Kentucky Bar Ass'n v. Carmichael , 244 S.W.3d 111 (Ky. 2008) (Board of Governors recommended disbarment); Kentucky Bar Ass'n v. Sivalls , 165 S.W.3d 137 (Ky. 2005) (default case); King v. Kentucky Bar Ass'n , 162 S.W.3d 462 (Ky. 2005) (permanent disbarment requested); Caudill v. Kentucky Bar Ass'n , 155 S.W.3d 725 (Ky. 2005) (permanent disbarment requested); Kentucky Bar Ass'n v. Tanner , 152 S.W.3d 875 (Ky. 2005) (default case); Kentucky Bar Ass'n v. Matthews , 131 S.W.3d 744 (Ky. 2004) (default case); Dickey v. Kentucky Bar Ass'n , 98 S.W.3d 864 (Ky. 2003) (permanent disbarment requested); Kentucky Bar Ass'n v. Layton , 97 S.W.3d 452 (Ky. 2003) (Board of Governors recommended permanent disbarment); Kentucky State Bar Ass'n v. Scott , 409 S.W.2d 293 (Ky. 1966) (Board of Governors recommended permanent disbarment); In re Shumate , 382 S.W.2d 405 (Ky. 1964) (Board of Governors recommended disbarment); and In re Lynch , 238 S.W.2d 118 (Ky. 1951) (Board of Bar Commissioners recommended permanent disbarment). Pepper , 632 S.W.3d at 322 n.17 (cases reviewed in Goble ).
Caudill v. Kentucky Bar Ass'n , Kentucky Bar Ass'n v. Carmichael , and Kentucky Bar Ass'n v. Rorrer , cases cited by the Office of Bar Counsel in support of Hogan's permanent disbarment, are among the cases often cited as authority supporting disbarment in cases involving criminal financial misconduct. In Caudill , this Court accepted the attorney's resignation under terms of disbarment when the attorney pled guilty to one count of Embezzlement of Money Belonging to the United States or Under a Program Conducted by the United States in Violation of a Federal Statute, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 641, and in state court pled guilty to two counts of Failure to Make Required Disposition of property Over $300. In Carmichael , the Board of Governor's recommended disbarment for the Commonwealth's Attorney without a prior disciplinary record who extorted money from a criminal defendant in exchange for agreeing not to prosecute, and the Court agreed "that such a flagrant abuse of authority and disregard for the law warrants permanent disbarment." In Rorrer , this Court agreed with the Board of Governors that permanent disbarment was appropriate for the attorney who was convicted by a jury of conspiring to commit money laundering and who never accepted responsibility for his conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, and/or deceit.
155 S.W.3d 725 (Ky. 2005).
244 S.W.3d 111 (Ky. 2008).
222 S.W.3d 223 (Ky. 2007).
See Pepper , 632 S.W.3d 312.
155 S.W.3d at 725-26.
244 S.W.3d at 112, 115. In Carmichael , id. at 115, the Court stated:
The aggravating factor this Court does find troubling, however, is Carmichael's position of authority and influence as the elected Commonwealth's Attorney for the 28th judicial district. In the past, this Court has disbarred other public officials for abusing their office's power for their own selfish gains. In KBA v.Layton , 97 S.W.3d 452 (Ky. 2003), this Court ordered that Layton be permanently disbarred due to his misappropriation of funds from his account as Master Commissioner of Jessamine and Garrard Counties. Similarly, in King v. KBA , 162 S.W.3d 462 (Ky. 2005), King was permanently disbarred after being convicted of 132 counts of theft by failure to make required disposition of property while acting as the Master Commissioner for McCreary Circuit Court.
222 S.W.3d at 226-30.
In regard to the wire fraud crime committed by Hogan, Kentucky Bar Ass'n v. Ford , Kentucky Bar Ass'n v. Coffman , and Reskin v. Kentucky Bar Ass'n , cases reviewed within Pepper , are cases which also included a wire fraud crime and another crime, and which resulted in attorney disbarment. In these cases, the attorney was convicted of wire fraud or its conspiracy in addition to the attorney being convicted of money laundering and/or its conspiracy. The Ford and Coffman cases, involving large amounts of money and numerous victims, proceeded as default cases. In Reskin , the attorney moved this Court for permanent disbarment. Permanent disbarment has also been found to be the appropriate discipline in other wire fraud cases, including Kentucky Bar Ass'n v. White (default case) and Kentucky Bar Ass'n v. Brandon (default case), cases which also involve other criminal convictions beyond wire fraud.
515 S.W.3d 181 (Ky. 2017).
494 S.W.3d 493 (Ky. 2016).
320 S.W.3d 698 (Ky. 2010).
Coffman and Reskin were also convicted of other crimes, including securities fraud. Pepper , 632 S.W.3d at 320-321.
Id. at 320.
Id. at 320-21.
613 S.W.2d 132, 132 (Ky. 1981).
498 S.W.3d 392 (Ky. 2016).
Kentucky Bar Ass'n v. Rice , and Gilfedder v. Kentucky Bar Ass'n , also cited by the Office of Bar Counsel in support of Hogan's disbarment, involve other facts comparable to Hogan's case.
229 S.W.3d 903 (Ky. 2007).
399 S.W.3d 779 (Ky. 2013).
In Rice , the attorney worked as an Assistant Fayette County Attorney. The attorney engaged in identity theft by creating two credit cards under someone else's name. The cards were used to make purchases totaling $14,332.42. After leaving the country without permission and returning a year later, the attorney was arrested and eventually pled guilty to two counts of False Statements as to Identity. Relative to this being a crime involving financial dishonesty, this Court, citing Rorrer , noted that "our precedent is crystal clear: we treat criminal financial misconduct by attorneys very seriously; and we have previously found that disbarment was appropriate for numerous attorneys who had committed criminal offenses involving dishonesty in financial matters." In light of precedent relative to criminal financial conduct, the deceitful nature of Rice's crimes, Rice's subsequent flight from the jurisdiction, his reluctance to take responsibility for his actions, and his inability to see the connection between his criminal conduct and his practice of law or his job as an Assistant County Attorney, this Court agreed with the Board of Governor's recommendation and concluded that permanent disbarment was warranted.
229 S.W.3d at 903.
Id.
Id.
Id. at 905 (quoting Rorrer , 222 S.W.3d at 229 ).
Id. at 905-06.
In Gilfedder , the attorney served as a disabled veteran's conservator and over twenty years stole and converted for his own use almost $640,000 in Veteran's Administration and Social Security Benefits that were paid to the veteran. The attorney pled guilty to federal criminal charges and was sentenced to forty-one months in prison and agreed to resign from the Kentucky bar under terms of permanent disbarment. In consideration of other bar complaints against Gilfedder, and authority supporting disbarment when the attorney commits serious criminal financial misconduct, the Court granted Gilfedder's motion to resign under terms of permanent disbarment.
Id. at 781.
Id. at 780-81.
While the preceding cases support Hogan's permanent disbarment, when determining appropriate discipline, we may also consider the American Bar Association Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions Rule 9 compilation of aggravating and mitigating circumstances. , The Office of Bar Counsel and the Board of Governors agree that the aggravating circumstances in this case include Hogan's (1) prior disciplinary offenses; (2) dishonest or selfish motive, reflected in the fact Hogan stole money, intended for the benefit of the public, for his personal use; (3) bad faith obstruction of the disciplinary proceeding by intentionally failing to comply with rules or orders of the disciplinary agency, reflected in the fact Hogan failed to file an answer to the First Amended Charges after being personally served by the sheriff and never participated in the disciplinary process; (4) refusal to acknowledge wrongful nature of conduct, reflected in his response to the State Auditor; and (5) substantial experience in the practice of law, reflected in the fact that Hogan has been licensed to practice law for almost 29 years, since October 21, 1994. The Office of Bar Counsel and the Board of Governors also agree that there are no known mitigating factors.
Kentucky Bar Ass'n v. Hill , 476 S.W.3d 874, 884 (Ky. 2015) ; Kentucky Bar Ass'n v. Deters , 360 S.W.3d 224, 233 (Ky. 2012) ; Anderson v. Kentucky Bar Ass'n , 262 S.W.3d 636, 638-39 (Ky. 2008).
Aggravating factors include: (a) prior disciplinary offenses; (b) dishonest or selfish motive; (c) a pattern of misconduct; (d) multiple offenses; (e) bad faith obstruction of the disciplinary proceeding by intentionally failing to comply with rules or orders of the disciplinary agency; (f) submission of false evidence, false statements or other deceptive practices during disciplinary process; (g) refusal to acknowledge wrongful nature of conduct; (h) vulnerability of victim; (i) substantial experience in the practice of law; (j) indifference to making restitution; and (k) illegal conduct, including that involving the use of controlled substances. Mitigating factors include: (a) absence of a prior disciplinary record; (b) absence of a dishonest or selfish motive; (c) personal or emotional problems; (d) timely good faith effort to make restitution or to rectify consequences of misconduct; (e) full and free disclosure to disciplinary board or cooperative attitude toward proceedings; (f) inexperience in the practice of law; (g) character or reputation; (h) physical disability; (i) mental disability or chemical dependency including alcoholism or drug abuse when: (1) there is medical evidence that the respondent is affected by a chemical dependency or mental disability ; (2) the chemical dependency or mental disability caused the misconduct; (3) the respondent's recovery from the chemical dependency or mental disability is demonstrated by a meaningful and sustained period of successful rehabilitation; and (4) the recovery arrested the misconduct and recurrence of that misconduct is unlikely; (j) delay in disciplinary proceedings; (k) imposition of other penalties or sanctions; (l) remorse; and (m) remoteness of prior offenses. ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions Rule 9, https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/professional_responsibility/sanction_standards.pdf (last visited Aug. 29, 2023).
Like the Office of Bar Counsel's emphasis of Hogan's violation of duties owed to the public, the Board expounds upon the fact that Hogan served as the Lawrence County Attorney and committed serious criminal conduct which was fraudulent in nature and performed such conduct in an official governmental capacity of public trust and he did this conduct to benefit himself against the interests of the taxpayers he was elected to represent. While criminal financial misconduct by attorneys has been repeatedly denounced by this Court, such conduct may be viewed as even more egregious when the attorney uses a position of power for their own selfish ends.
See Huffman , 422 S.W.3d 230 (discussing Kentucky Bar Ass'n v. Carmichael , 244 S.W.3d 111, 114 (Ky. 2008) and Kentucky Bar Ass'n v. Rice , 229 S.W.3d 903 (Ky. 2007) ; and citing Kentucky Bar Ass'n v. Maze , 397 S.W.3d 891 (Ky. 2013) ; Kentucky Bar Ass'n v. Bamberger , 354 S.W.3d 576 (Ky. 2011) (disbarring circuit court judge permanently for his egregious conduct as a presiding judge and noting that it "shock[ed] the Court's conscience."); Kentucky Bar Ass'n v. Dixon , 373 S.W.3d 444 (Ky. 2012) (disagreeing with Trial Commissioner's recommendation and imposing public reprimand at least partly because Dixon, as County Attorney, was an elected official); King v. Kentucky Bar Ass'n , 162 S.W.3d 462 (Ky. 2005) (granting King's motion for permanent disbarment as a result of his misappropriation of funds while serving as Master Commissioner for McCreary Circuit Court); Kentucky Bar Ass'n v. Layton , 97 S.W.3d 452 (Ky. 2003) (ordering Layton permanently disbarred for the illegal conversion of funds as Master Commissioner of Jessamine and Garrard counties)).
"This Court has the responsibility to ensure that bar membership maintains the character and fitness to practice law and to safeguard the public trust in the profession of law."
Grigsby v. Kentucky Bar Ass'n , 181 S.W.3d 40, 42 (Ky. 2005).
Fitness to practice law includes maintaining good moral character. It is a
long standing principle that for one to be worthy to practice law, the person must have a good moral character upon entering the profession, and must maintain such character all through his or her professional life. In re Lane , 291 S.W.2d 19 (Ky. 1956). Any act by an attorney that brings the profession or the authority of the courts and administration of the law into disrespect or disregard, such as dishonesty, personal misconduct, questionable moral character, or unprofessional conduct is potential grounds for disbarment. In re Taylor , 309 Ky. 388, 217 S.W.2d 954 (1949). Rather, the public is entitled to rely on an attorney's admission to the practice of law as a certification of the attorney's honesty, high ethical standards, and good moral character. Kentucky Bar Ass'n v. Collis , 535 S.W.2d 95 (Ky. 1975)cert. denied 423 U.S. 1049, 96 S. Ct. 775, 46 L.Ed.2d 637 [(1976)]. Thus, the companion aspect of discipline is to safeguard the public's trust that this Court maintains a bar membership that has the fitness and character to practice law.[ ]
Id. at 42–43.
Upon review of the record, we acknowledge that the United States District Court considered Hogan's acceptance of responsibility and timely notice of intent to plead guilty when sentencing Hogan. While timely acceptance of responsibility may be part of mitigating circumstances for imposition of a lesser sanction than disbarment when an attorney has committed serious criminal financial misconduct, this is a default case, a case in which Hogan has not participated. Having reviewed precedent relative to criminal financial misconduct and to attorneys serving as elected officials who abuse the public trust, and the ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions , we agree with the Board's recommendation. Hogan used his position to take advantage of two separate sources of public funds to the detriment of employees, the institutions he was elected to represent, and the public trust in elected officials. Furthermore, Hogan is "guilty of such conduct as is calculated to bring the bench and bar into disrepute." The record does not support a conclusion that Hogan has the fitness and character to practice law.
See Pepper , 632 S.W.3d at 330.
Kentucky State Bar Ass'n v. Vincent , 537 S.W.2d 171, 173 (Ky. 1976).
Grigsby , 181 S.W.3d at 42–43.
III. ORDER
Agreeing that the Board's recommendation is appropriate, it is ORDERED that:
1) Michael Todd Hogan, KBA Member No. 85537, is guilty of violating SCR 3.130 (8.4)(b) as alleged in KBA File 20-DIS-0116;
2) Hogan is permanently disbarred from the practice of law in the Commonwealth of Kentucky. Disbarment shall commence on the date of entry of this Opinion and Order;
3) In accordance with SCR 3.450, Hogan is ordered to pay all costs associated with these disciplinary proceedings against him, said sum being $590.31, for which execution may issue from this Court upon finality of this Opinion and Order; and
4) As required by SCR 3.390, Hogan, to the extent necessary given that he is currently suspended, shall within twenty (20) days after the issuance of this order of disbarment, notify, by letter duly placed with the
United States Postal Service, all courts or other tribunals in which he has matters pending, and all clients of his inability to represent them and of the necessity and urgency of promptly retaining new counsel. Hogan shall simultaneously provide a copy of all such letters of notification to the Office of Bar Counsel. Likewise, Hogan shall immediately cancel any pending advertisements, to the extent possible, and shall terminate any advertising activity for the duration of the term of disbarment.
/s/ Laurance B. VanMeter
CHIEF JUSTICE
All sitting. All concur.