Case Title: Disciplinary Counsel v. Linick

Citation: 1999-Ohio-414

Docket Number: 

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 1999-02-10T00:00:00Z

Document:
OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. LINICK. 
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Linick (1999), ___ Ohio St.3d ___.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — One-year suspension — Accepting 
compensation for referring cases — Dividing fees with lawyers not in the 
same firm without prior consent of client. 
(No. 98-1241 — Submitted September 16, 1998 — Decided February 10, 1999.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 96-58. 
 
On June 19, 1997, relator, Disciplinary Counsel, filed a twelve-count 
amended complaint, alleging that respondent, David M. Linick of Beachwood, 
Ohio, Attorney Registration No. 0009026, violated several Disciplinary Rules 
while serving as an attorney for ICI Paints, Glidden Division of Cleveland, Ohio.  
Respondent answered, 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 that while employed as senior corporate counsel for 
Glidden, respondent referred eight cases to attorney Richard Zuckerman to handle 
as outside counsel for the company.  After Zuckerman billed and was paid by 
Glidden reasonable fees for his work, he made a gift to respondent of one-half of 
each fee he received from Glidden.  The total amount Zuckerman gave to 
respondent with respect to the eight cases was $8,572.50. 
 
The panel found that during the same period, respondent forwarded three 
cases to outside counsel Frederick D. Kanter.  For his services, Glidden paid 
Kanter over $174,000, which the panel found to be reasonable fees.  Kanter then 
gave respondent $38,000 in gifts.  Glidden was unaware that Zuckerman and 
Kanter gave this money to respondent. 
 
The panel concluded that respondent’s conduct violated DR 2-107(A)(1) 
(fees may be divided by lawyers who are not in the same firm only with the 
 
2
consent of the client after written disclosure, and the division is either in proportion 
to the work done by each attorney or all lawyers assume responsibility for the 
representation) and 5-107(A)(2) (except where the client consents after full 
disclosure, a lawyer shall not accept anything of value related to his employment 
from someone other than his client).  The panel found no clear and convincing 
evidence to conclude that respondent violated DR 1-102(A)(4) (engaging in 
conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation) and (6) 
(engaging in conduct that adversely reflects upon the lawyer’s fitness to practice 
law). 
 
The panel noted in mitigation that after discovering these facts, Glidden 
dismissed respondent but permitted him to wind up certain cases and to continue to 
represent Glidden as chairperson of the creditors’ committee in one of the largest 
pending bankruptcy cases in which Glidden was involved.  It further found that 
Glidden was happy with respondent’s performance as a lawyer, but that failure to 
discharge respondent would send the wrong message to other employees.  The 
panel took note of a letter from the chief executive officer of ICI Paints, requesting 
leniency for respondent and dismissal of the disciplinary charges against him.  The 
panel also noted that respondent had repaid $16,400 to Glidden at the time of the 
hearing and that he could not pay more because his law practice was not going 
well.  At the hearing, Glidden’s current senior corporate counsel testified that 
because respondent’s actions had no financial impact upon the company, Glidden 
would waive the balance owed by respondent. 
 
The panel recommended that respondent be suspended from the practice of 
law for one year with the full year stayed on condition that respondent be involved 
in no further disciplinary violations.  The board agreed with the panel’s findings 
and conclusions, but recommended that respondent be suspended for one year with 
 
3
six months stayed on condition that respondent not be involved in any further 
disciplinary violations. 
__________________ 
 
Jonathan E. Coughlan, Disciplinary Counsel, and Lori J. Brown, Assistant 
Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. 
 
Charles W. Kettlewell, for respondent. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam.  We adopt the findings and conclusions of the board.  On 
review of the record, we find that respondent’s conduct violated DR 2-107(A)(1) 
and 5-107(A)(2) as found by the board.  In Ohio State Bar Assn. v. Zuckerman 
(1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 148, 699 N.E.2d 40, we imposed a one-year suspension on 
one of the outside counsel who participated in this scheme.  We believe that the 
same sanction is appropriate for respondent.  Respondent is hereby suspended from 
the practice of law in Ohio for one year.  Costs taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER and COOK, JJ., concur. 
 
RESNICK and LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., dissent. 
__________________ 
 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, J., dissenting.  I respectfully dissent from the 
sanction imposed by the majority.  In the case of Ohio State Bar Assn. v. 
Zuckerman (1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 148, 699 N.E.2d 40, the court imposed a one-
year suspension.  In the Zuckerman case, no one disputes that Zuckerman did 
competent work and received a reasonable fee for his services.  He then kicked 
back fifty percent of the fee to Linick. 
 
Linick performed no services for the percentage of kickback he received.  
He had a similar scheme going with Attorney Kanter.  Linick returned none of this 
 
4
money to his employer, Glidden.  He was the mastermind and the beneficiary of 
the scheme.  His discipline should therefore be greater than Zuckerman’s. 
 
Therefore, I would suspend Linick for two years, with six months stayed. 
 
RESNICK, J., concurs in the foregoing dissenting opinion.