The Supreme Court of Ohio issued a conditionally stayed two-year suspension against Cincinnati attorney Mark Carter Eppley on Jan. 22, 2026, following a disciplinary proceeding that revealed multiple serious violations of professional conduct rules.
The Cincinnati Bar Association filed a complaint in November 2024 charging Eppley with 24 violations of the Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct. The charges arose from his representation of two separate clients and involved false and misleading statements regarding his practice.
Eppley, who has been licensed to practice law in Ohio since 2005, is also admitted to practice in Kentucky and Pennsylvania. His attorney registration number is 0079218, according to court records.
The disciplinary action stems from what court documents describe as a pattern of professional misconduct involving multiple areas of legal practice ethics. The violations include neglect of client legal matters, misappropriation of client funds, unauthorized practice of law in another jurisdiction, and use of a misleading firm name.
Client neglect represents one of the most serious charges against Eppley. This violation occurs when an attorney fails to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client, potentially causing harm to the client's legal interests. Such conduct violates Rule 1.3 of the Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct, which requires lawyers to act with reasonable diligence in representing clients.
The misappropriation of client funds charge is particularly grave, as it involves the improper handling of money that clients entrusted to the attorney. This type of violation can result in severe disciplinary sanctions because it directly undermines the trust relationship between attorney and client that forms the foundation of legal representation.
Unauthorized practice of law in another jurisdiction means Eppley allegedly provided legal services in a state where he was not properly licensed to practice. While Eppley is admitted to practice in Ohio, Kentucky, and Pennsylvania, the charges suggest he may have practiced law in a jurisdiction where he lacked proper authorization.
The use of a misleading firm name violation indicates that Eppley may have used professional designations or firm names that could confuse or mislead potential clients about his qualifications, experience, or the nature of his practice.
The Supreme Court of Ohio's decision to impose a conditionally stayed suspension means that Eppley will not immediately serve the two-year suspension, provided he complies with specific conditions set by the court. If he violates these conditions, the full suspension would take effect.
The case was processed through the Board of Professional Conduct of the Supreme Court under case number 2024-028. The Supreme Court case number is 2025-0788, and the matter was submitted to the court on Aug. 6, 2025.
The per curiam opinion was joined by Chief Justice Kennedy and Justices Fischer, DeWine, Deters, Hawkins, and Shanahan. Justice Brunner did not participate in the decision.
Professional discipline cases in Ohio follow a structured process. The Cincinnati Bar Association, as the complainant in this case, investigated the allegations and filed formal charges. The Board of Professional Conduct reviewed the matter and certified its findings to the Supreme Court of Ohio, which has ultimate authority over attorney discipline in the state.
Conditionally stayed suspensions are designed to allow attorneys to continue practicing while demonstrating their ability to comply with professional standards. The conditions typically include requirements such as continuing legal education, supervision by another attorney, or regular reporting to disciplinary authorities.
The 24 violations charged against Eppley represent a substantial number of alleged misconduct instances, suggesting a pattern of behavior rather than isolated incidents. The Cincinnati Bar Association's investigation likely involved multiple clients, financial records, and practice management issues.
This disciplinary action serves as a reminder of the importance of maintaining proper client relationships, safeguarding client funds, and operating within the boundaries of authorized practice. The legal profession's self-regulatory system depends on bar associations and courts holding attorneys accountable for violations of professional conduct rules.
The case highlights the ongoing efforts by Ohio's legal regulatory system to maintain public trust in the legal profession through appropriate disciplinary measures. The conditionally stayed suspension allows Eppley to potentially rehabilitate his practice while ensuring public protection through court oversight.
Attorneys facing similar disciplinary proceedings should note that violations involving client funds and neglect of client matters are taken particularly seriously by disciplinary authorities and can result in significant sanctions that affect an attorney's ability to practice law.