Ohio State Bar Assn. v. Zuckerman - 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

OHIO STATE BAR ASSOCIATION v. ZUCKERMAN.
[Cite as Ohio State Bar Assn. v. Zuckerman (1998), ___ Ohio St.3d ___.]
Attorneys at law -- Misconduct -- One-year suspension -- Compensating person
for recommendation of employment -- Requesting person to promote use of
lawyer's services -- Dividing fees with lawyers not in the same firm without
prior consent of client.
(No. 97-2670 -- Submitted June 9, 1998 -- Decided September 16, 1998.)
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 97-39.

Prior to 1994, respondent, Richard Zuckerman of Cleveland, Ohio, Attorney
Registration No. 0025680, was co-counsel with David Linick, Senior Corporate
Counsel of the Glidden Company, in several personal injury cases unrelated to
Glidden matters. In one such case, respondent and Linick failed to file a
complaint within the statute of limitations and settled with their client for $5,000.
Respondent and Linick each contributed $2,500 to the settlement amount.
Thereafter, from the spring of 1994 through November 1995, Linick referred
several Glidden corporate matters to respondent, and respondent billed Glidden for
his work. Respondent's bills were approved by Linick. After being paid by
Glidden for his legal work, respondent sent checks to Linick for exactly half the
amount of the payments he had received from Glidden. There was no overt
agreement between respondent and Linick with respect to the fifty percent
payments to Linick, but each understood that initially the payments were made to
recoup the funds paid out in the settlement. Glidden was not aware of
respondent's payments.

Ohio State Bar Association, relator, filed an amended complaint on July 15,
1997, charging, inter alia, that respondent's conduct violated DR 2-103(B) (a

lawyer shall not compensate a person to recommend or secure the lawyer's
employment by a client or as a reward for having made a recommendation
resulting in the lawyer's employment by a client), 2-103(C) (a lawyer shall not
request a person to promote the use of a lawyer's services), and 2-107(A) (fees
may be divided by lawyers who are not in the same firm only with the prior
consent of the client after written disclosure, and the division is in proportion to
the work done by each attorney or all lawyers assume responsibility for the
representation).

Respondent filed his answer, and the matter was heard by a panel of the
Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court
("board"). The panel found the facts as alleged and concluded that respondent
violated the Disciplinary Rules as charged. The panel received evidence in
mitigation that respondent had practiced for twenty-six years without any prior
disciplinary problems, and that he cooperated in the investigation by the
Disciplinary Counsel. The panel also received testimony from judges about
respondent's ability and character, and testimony about his illness and dependence
on Prozac and about illness in his family. The panel recommended that
respondent be publicly reprimanded. The board adopted the findings, conclusions,
and recommendation of the panel.
__________________

William T. Monroe, Daniel J. Hughes, Eugene P. Whetzel and James
Flaherty, for relator.

Mary L. Cibella, for respondent.
__________________
Per
Curiam. We adopt the findings and conclusions of the board, but
believe a more severe sanction is warranted. The Disciplinary Rules are clear. No

2

circumstance would have justified respondent's payments to Linick whether they
were characterized as fees or as gifts. Respondent should have known that if
Linick was to receive any portion of the fees Glidden paid to respondent, Linick
was required by DR 2-107 to actually have done some work or at least have
assumed responsibility for the handling of the matters. Respondent should also
have known that DR 2-103(B) prohibited him from paying any reward to Linick
for his employment by Glidden.

Respondent is hereby suspended from the practice of law in Ohio for one
year. Costs taxed to respondent.
Judgment accordingly.

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

3