Case Title: Butler Cty. Bar Assn. v. McKenzie

Citation: 2002-Ohio-3620

Docket Number: 

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2002-07-31T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as Butler Cty. Bar Assn. v. McKenzie, 96 Ohio St.3d 155, 2002-Ohio-3620.] 
 
 
BUTLER COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION v. MCKENZIE. 
[Cite as Butler Cty. Bar Assn. v. McKenzie, 96 Ohio St.3d 155, 2002-Ohio-
3620.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Public reprimand — Violating several 
provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility while engaging in 
direct mail advertising of legal services. 
(No. 2002-0348 — Submitted April 10, 2002 — Decided July 31, 2002.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 01-14. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶1} 
On February 5, 2001, relator, Butler County Bar Association, filed 
a complaint charging Kyle B. McKenzie of Hamilton, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0063477, with violating several provisions of the Code of 
Professional Responsibility when he engaged in direct mail advertising of his 
legal services.  Respondent answered, and the matter was referred to a panel of 
the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court. 
{¶2} 
Based on evidence and stipulations received at a hearing on 
October 26, 2001, the panel found that in 1999, respondent, whose practice was 
primarily personal injury work, engaged a marketing company to mail out 
solicitation letters to prospective clients.  The letters the marketing company 
transmitted on respondent’s behalf contained testimonials from former clients.  
Also, the wording “Advertisement Only” on some of the envelopes was not 
printed in red ink. 
{¶3} 
The panel also heard evidence that the fact that the words 
“Advertisement Only” were not always in red ink was a printer’s error.  
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
Additionally, the panel found that although respondent initially approved the 
testimonials, he eventually had the testimonials removed from the solicitation 
letters. 
{¶4} 
The panel concluded that respondent had violated DR 2-101(A)(3) 
(a lawyer shall not use a direct mail solicitation that contains a testimonial of past 
or present clients pertaining to the lawyer’s capability) and 2-101(F)(2)(e) (a 
lawyer may engage in solicitation by direct mail in specified limited 
circumstances  provided the letter of  solicitation in its text and on the envelope in 
which it is mailed includes the words “ADVERTISEMENT ONLY” in type no 
smaller than 10 points and in red ink).  After receiving mitigation evidence 
regarding respondent’s good reputation and noting his complete cooperation with 
relator’s investigation, the panel recommended that respondent receive a public 
reprimand. 
{¶5} 
The board adopted the findings, conclusions, and recommendation 
of the panel. 
{¶6} 
On review of the record we adopt the findings, conclusions, and 
recommendation of the board.  Respondent is hereby publicly reprimanded.  Costs 
are taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
 
Stephen J. Brewer and Bennett A. Manning, for relator. 
 
Charles Kettlewell and Timothy R. Evans, for respondent. 
__________________