Toledo Bar Assn. v. Ritson - 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 Toledo Bar Assn. v. Ritson, 94 Ohio St.3d 411, 2002-Ohio-1047.]

TOLEDO BAR ASSOCIATION v. RITSON.
[Cite as Toledo Bar Assn. v. Ritson (2002), 94 Ohio St.3d 411.]
Attorneys at law -- Misconduct -- Public reprimand -- Filing an action to
recover medical insurance company's subrogation interest without its
knowledge or permission.
(No. 01-1879 -- Submitted December 12, 2001 -- Decided February 27, 2002.)
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 01-40.
__________________

Per Curiam. On April 9, 2001, relator, Toledo Bar Association, filed a
complaint charging respondent, Douglas J. Ritson of Toledo, Ohio, Attorney
Registration No. 0060104, with several violations of the Code of Professional
Responsibility. Respondent answered the complaint, and a panel of the Board of
Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court ("board")
heard the matter. Based on the parties' stipulations, the panel found that
respondent had violated DR 2-103(A) (a lawyer should not recommend his
professional representation to a nonlawyer who has not sought his advice); 1-
102(A)(5) (a lawyer should not engage in conduct prejudicial to the
administration of justice) and (6) (a lawyer should not engage in conduct that
adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law); and 6-101(A)(2) (a lawyer
should not handle a legal matter without adequate preparation). The panel
recommended that respondent be publicly reprimanded for his misconduct, and
the board accepted this recommendation, as well as the panel's findings of fact
and conclusions of law.

We concur in the board's decision. Respondent stipulated that he
committed the cited disciplinary infractions while assisting a client with the

SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
administration of her late husband's estate. Respondent and the client agreed that
he should attempt to obtain certain workers' compensation benefits made
available because her husband had died after sustaining an industrial injury. In
the course of this effort, respondent contacted the claims department of
Paramount Health Care, which had paid medical bills on the husband's behalf,
and inquired about representing the carrier in recovering these costs from the
husband's former employer. Paramount did not request respondent's services.
Respondent then filed an action, without Paramount Health Care's knowledge or
permission, to recover its subrogation interest, notwithstanding that a contract
between the employer and Paramount prohibited the carrier from bringing such an
action against the employer.

Respondent has never before been the subject of disciplinary action, and
he cooperated fully in relator's investigation. He also submitted letters from
clients and colleagues, all of whom described their confidence in and respect for
his professional competence. In light of this mitigating evidence, we consider a
public reprimand to be the appropriate sanction. Respondent is, therefore,
publicly reprimanded for his violations of DR 2-103(A), 1-102(A)(5) and (6), and
6-101(A)(2).

Costs are taxed to respondent.
Judgment accordingly.

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

Harold M. Steinberg, C. William Bair and Jonathan B. Cherry, for relator.

James D. Caruso, for respondent.
__________________
2