Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Rinderknecht - Ohio Supreme Court Opinion - Ohio Supreme Court Decision

	ROMINGER LEGAL
		Ohio Court Cases and Opinions - Ohio Legal Research
					Need Legal Help?
					Need Legal Help?
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER			LEGAL HEADLINES - CASE LAW - LEGAL FORMS	NOT FINDING WHAT YOU NEED? -RESEARCH

This court case was taken from the web sites of the Ohio Courts. Search our site for more cases - CLICK HERE

LEGAL RESEARCH

COURT REPORTERS

PRIVATE INVESTIGATORS

PROCESS SERVERS

DOCUMENT RETRIEVERS

EXPERT WITNESSES

Find a Private Investigator

Find an Expert Witness

Find a Process Server

Case Law - save on Lexis / WestLaw.

Legal News - Legal Headlines

CINCINNATI BAR ASSOCIATION v. RINDERKNECHT.
[Cite as Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Rinderknecht (1997), 79 Ohio St.3d 30.]
Attorneys at law -- Misconduct -- Indefinite suspension -- Soliciting business by
telephone -- Entering into agreement with and making payment to a non-
approved organization to promote services as an attorney -- Giving
unsolicited advice that persons should obtain legal counsel and then
accepting employment from those persons -- Accepting employment that
attorney's agent has recommended.
(No. 96-1993 -- Submitted March 4, 1997 -- Decided June 18, 1997.)
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 95-13.

In a complaint filed on February 6, 1995, and amended on October 10,
1995, the Cincinnati Bar Association, relator, charged respondent, Edward G.
Rinderknecht of Cincinnati, Ohio, Attorney Registration No. 0025845, with
violations of the Disciplinary Rules. In his answers, respondent denied violating
any Disciplinary Rules and asked that the complaints be dismissed.

A panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the
Supreme Court ("board") heard evidence in this case on January 31 and February
1, 1996. At this hearing, relator attempted to prove that respondent had conceived
of a program, in conjunction with a business consultant and a doctor, in which
recent accident victims would receive calls from employees of the program. The
caller would attempt to secure the medical and legal business of the accident
victim for the doctor and respondent. Relator also attempted to prove that
respondent hired people to monitor police radio scanners and appear at accident
scenes to secure the business of the accident victims for the doctor and respondent.
Respondent attempted to prove that he did not participate in any such program.

Nevertheless, the panel found that respondent hired Frank Lalli, a long-time
business associate, to help respondent organize his office. Respondent introduced
Lalli to Dr. Robert Barner, a chiropractor. Barner hired Lalli to market Barner's
chiropractic practice.

To do this, Lalli created the Ohio Accident Assistance Program ("OAAP").
OAAP hired telephone solicitors to call accident victims to inform the victims
about their rights, including receiving medical care and legal representation. In
reality, OAAP attempted to steer business to Barner and respondent. Respondent
paid OAAP $1,075 per month for this service.

Respondent and Barner also paid Robert "L.A." Jackson to drive individuals
to and from their offices for appointments. According to the testimony, Jackson
monitored a police scanner for accidents. On learning of an accident, he appeared
at the scene, sometimes before the police arrived, and offered to transport the
victim to see Barner and respondent. Jackson received between $100 and $200 for
each referral.

Under Count I, Dale Daniels received a telephone call at his house from
OAAP following his automobile collision. OAAP set Daniels up with
appointments to see Barner and respondent. The caller also set up similar
appointments for Dante Seta, an acquaintance of Daniels, who was also injured in
the collision.

The panel found that respondent had violated DR 2-101(F)(1) (soliciting
business by telephone), 2-103(B) and (C) (entering into agreement with and
making payment to a non-approved organization to promote services as an
attorney), and 2-104(A) (giving unsolicited advice that persons should obtain legal
counsel and then accepting employment from those persons).

2

As to Count II, Andrea Jones and Devon Flowers received telephone calls
after an automobile collision from a person named "Roxanne," who stated that she
worked for an agency that could help them. On Roxanne's recommendation,
Jones scheduled appointments with respondent. According to the testimony, a
Roxanne Jacobs worked for Barner and respondent at the time the telephone calls
were made.

The panel found that respondent had violated the same Disciplinary Rules
as in Count I.

Finally, as to Count III, Frank C. Walker was in an automobile accident.
Jackson appeared at the scene immediately and approached Walker. Jackson gave
Walker respondent's business card, on the back of which was Jackson's pager
number, and recommended that Walker should retain respondent. Relator claims
that Jackson received $100 for Walker's referral.

The panel found that respondent had violated DR 2-101(F)(1), 2-103(A) and
(B) (accepting employment that an attorney's agent has recommended), and 2-
104(A).

The panel recommended that the court indefinitely suspend respondent from
the practice of law in Ohio. The board adopted the findings of fact, conclusions of
law, and recommendation of the panel. Respondent objects to these findings and
urges the court to dismiss the case or, alternatively, to issue a much less severe
sanction. Relator objects to the findings and asks the court to permanently disbar
respondent.
__________________

John B. Pinney and James L. O'Connell, for relator.

H. Fred Hoefle, for respondent.
__________________

3

Per Curiam. We reject respondent's arguments that the panel incorrectly
admitted the statement of a co-conspirator and that relator did not prove the
violations by clear and convincing evidence. Furthermore, we accept the findings,
conclusions, and recommended sanction of the board. Accordingly, we
indefinitely suspend respondent from the practice of law in Ohio and tax costs to
him.
Judgment accordingly.

MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur.

4