Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Haas - 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. HAAS.
[Cite as Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Haas (1998), ___ Ohio St.3d ___.]
Attorneys at law -- Misconduct -- One-year suspension -- Paying insurance
company salesman for referring personal injury claimants.
(No. 97-2640 -- Submitted May 26, 1998 -- Decided September 30, 1998.)
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 96-107.

In 1990, respondent, Herbert Jaime Haas of Cincinnati, Ohio, Attorney
Registration No. 0015411, entered into an arrangement with James Hearn, an
insurance company salesman who was not an attorney, whereby Hearn would refer
personal injury claimants to respondent in return for a portion of the fees at the
conclusion of the case. From 1990 through 1996, respondent represented twenty
to thirty of the persons referred to him by Hearn and paid Hearn $22,160.38. In
1996, Hearn sued respondent for unpaid fees that he was entitled to receive and
obtained a judgment in the amount of $977.

On May 19, 1997, relator, Cincinnati Bar Association, filed an amended
complaint charging that the arrangement between respondent and Hearn violated
the Code of Professional Responsibility. After respondent filed his answer, the
matter was submitted to a panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and
Discipline of the Supreme Court ("board") on stipulated facts, the testimony of
respondent expressing remorse, the testimony of a judge (appearing pursuant to
subpoena) concerning respondent's ability and good character, and letters with
respect to respondent's good character from five other attorneys, a court
administrator, the executive director of a legal aid society, a public defender, and
respondent's rabbi.

The panel found the facts as stipulated and concluded that respondent's
conduct violated DR 3-102(A) (sharing fees with a non-lawyer), 2-103(B)
(compensating a person to recommend or secure employment of a client), and 2-
103(C) (requesting a person to recommend or promote the use of a lawyer's
services). The panel recommended that respondent be suspended from the
practice of law for two years with one of those years suspended. The board
adopted the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the panel.
__________________

Robert J. Gehring and Maria C. Palermo, for relator.

Mark A. Vander Laan, for respondent.
__________________

Per Curiam. We adopt the findings and conclusions of the board. In
Warren Cty. Bar Assn. v. Bunce (1998), 81 Ohio St.3d 112, 689 N.E.2d 566, we
said that in imposing a sanction, we will take into account the duty violated, the
mental state of the lawyer, the actual or potential injury caused by the misconduct,
and the existence of mitigating factors. The duty violated here is to refrain from
compensating a third party to promote the use of a lawyer's services. While many
persons refer counsel to others, when such a referral is the result of monetary
influence, it lacks the reliability of a disinterested recommendation. Cf.
Greenbaum, Lawyer's Guide to the Ohio Code of Professional Responsibility
(1996), at 189.

On previous occasions we have imposed an indefinite suspension when
attorneys have paid non-lawyers for referrals. Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. White
(1997), 79 Ohio St.3d 491, 684 N.E.2d 29; Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Rinderknecht
(1997), 79 Ohio St.3d 30, 679 N.E.2d 669. Each of those cases, however,
involved additional violations of the Disciplinary Rules. Respondent's conduct in

2

this case did not involve other disciplinary infractions and respondent, who has
had an otherwise exemplary record, appeared remorseful. Respondent is hereby
suspended from the practice of law in Ohio for one year. Costs taxed to
respondent.
Judgment accordingly.

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

DOUGLAS and RESNICK, JJ., dissent and would stay a one-year suspension.

3