Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Spitz - 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

[Cite as Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Spitz, 89 Ohio St.3d 117, 2000-Ohio-122.]

CINCINNATI BAR ASSOCIATION v. SPITZ.
[Cite as Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Spitz (2000), 89 Ohio St.3d 117.]
Attorneys at law -- Misconduct -- Indefinite suspension -- Sharing a legal fee
with a nonlawyer -- Engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud,
deceit, or misrepresentation -- Failure to cooperate in a disciplinary
investigation.
(No. 99-1898 -- Submitted February 9, 2000 -- Decided May 31, 2000.)
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 97-56.

In early 1991, respondent, Gregory G. Spitz of Cincinnati, Ohio, Attorney
Registration No. 0000794, prepared a deed and a trust for George Szucs under an
arrangement that respondent had with Marilyn T. Matho. Matho, a nonattorney,
received $1,195 from Szucs, and Matho dispersed $597.50, exactly one-half of the
amount received from Szucs, to respondent.

While investigating an unrelated matter in 1996, relator, the Cincinnati Bar
Association, learned about this transaction. Relator then asked respondent for the
details of this transaction. Respondent denied, in a letter dated October 30, 1996,
having a fee-sharing arrangement with Matho. Respondent did state that Matho
had engaged him to research some questions regarding Ohio trust law, for which

she paid him "five or six hundred dollars to the best of my recollection." In this
letter, respondent claimed that he directed Matho to refer any clients for deeds
directly to him. He admitted preparing a deed for Szucs, for which he received
$50, but he denied sharing this money with Matho. He further denied preparing
any "trust for this mystery person nor did I receive $600.00 for doing any trust."

Relator, in a letter dated January 6, 1997, noted conflicting accounts
regarding the trust transaction and asked respondent to submit "copies of any
invoices showing any bills which you may have rendered to Ms. Matho or her
business partner for legal representation." Respondent, on February 5, 1997, sent
relator an invoice he claimed was a copy of the one he sent to Matho on December
20, 1990. The invoice was on letterhead listing respondent's former office address
where respondent had conducted his practice in 1990. The invoice indicated a
billing to Matho for:

"Legal consultation and research on Ohio Trust Law

$590.00

Copying fee 7.50

TOTAL DUE $597.50"

In fact, respondent had retrieved old stationary and prepared a phony
invoice. Later, at a deposition taken by relator, respondent still maintained that he

2

had billed Matho for researching Ohio trust law and denied preparing a trust for
Szucs or sharing legal fees with Matho.

On June 16, 1997, relator filed a complaint charging respondent, in two
counts, with violating DR 3-102 (sharing a legal fee with a nonlawyer) and 1-
102(A)(4) (engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or
misrepresentation). Relator also charged respondent with a violation of Gov.Bar
R. V(4)(G) (failure to cooperate in a disciplinary investigation).

At a hearing before a panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances
and Discipline of the Supreme Court ("board"), respondent admitted that the
claims he had made in his October 30, 1996 letter were not true. He also admitted
that he had fabricated the invoice to appear like a 1990 invoice. He further
admitted that he had lied under oath about his arrangement with Matho and the
fabricated invoice at his deposition. He explained that he panicked when relator
confronted him and reacted in the way he did.

The panel found that respondent had violated DR 3-102 and 1-102(A)(4).
The panel concluded that while the fee-splitting arrangement did not "by itself
warrant a harsh sanction, [respondent's] conduct and actions in attempting to
cover-up the fee splitting were particularly egregious." The panel also concluded
that respondent was not truthful in his testimony at the hearing. The panel, in
addition, observed that respondent had received a six-month suspension in 1991

3

for engaging in other dishonest, fraudulent, and deceitful conduct and
misrepresentation. Consequently, the panel recommended that we indefinitely
suspend respondent from the practice of law.

The board adopted the findings of fact and conclusions of law of the panel,
and likewise recommended that we indefinitely suspend respondent from the
practice of law in Ohio.
__________________

Deborah DeLong and Naomi C. Dallob, for relator.

H. Fred Hoefle, for respondent.
__________________

Per Curiam. In Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Spitz (1991), 62 Ohio St.3d 178,
179, 580 N.E.2d 1071, 1072, we disciplined respondent for lying to his clients
about filing a suit on their behalf and preparing a "sham" brief to convince them of
his continued efforts in the case. He then told his clients that the judge "had
thrown their case out," rendering further action futile. For these deceitful actions,
we suspended respondent from the practice of law for six months.

Respondent did not learn from his previous suspension. When confronted
with an investigation for his improper conduct in this case, respondent responded
with lies and another sham document. We must reply with a more serious penalty
than in respondent's previous case. Accordingly, we adopt the findings,

4

conclusions, and recommendation of the board. We hereby indefinitely suspend
respondent from the practice of law. Costs taxed to respondent.
Judgment accordingly.

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

5