Case Title: Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Reed

Citation: 2002-Ohio-322

Docket Number: 20011179

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2002-01-16T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Reed, 94 Ohio St.3d 139, 2002-Ohio-322.] 
 
 
 
CLEVELAND BAR ASSOCIATION v. REED. 
[Cite as Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Reed (2002), 94 Ohio St.3d 139.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Public reprimand — Aiding a nonlawyer in 
the unauthorized practice of law — Sharing legal fees with a nonlawyer 
— Engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice. 
(No. 01-1179 — Submitted October 16, 2001 — Decided January 16, 2002.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 00-59. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam.  On January 19, 2000, we determined that Cornell Moore, a 
lawyer in good standing in the state of Pennsylvania, had engaged in the 
unauthorized practice of law in Ohio by advising Ohio clients on personal injury 
matters, entering into contingency fee agreements with them, negotiating on their 
behalf with insurance companies, and agreeing to settlements for them.  
Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Moore (2000), 87 Ohio St.3d 583, 722 N.E.2d 514.  We 
enjoined Moore from the further practice of law in Ohio. 
 
Now, based upon a complaint filed by relator, Cleveland Bar Association, 
on August 14, 2000, we are called upon to determine whether respondent, Tyrone 
E. Reed of Cleveland, Ohio, Attorney Registration No. 0030839, aided Moore in 
the unauthorized practice of law.  Respondent answered, and the matter was 
referred to a panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline 
(“board”). 
 
Based upon testimony introduced at the hearing, the panel found that in 
1994, respondent leased office space to Moore.  While working out of that office 
space, Moore negotiated with insurance companies and settled some cases on a 
contingency fee basis.  Cases that he could not settle, Moore referred to 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
respondent for litigation.  At the beginning of his tenancy in respondent’s offices, 
Moore produced letters from the Cleveland Bar Association and the Office of the 
Disciplinary Counsel of the Supreme Court of Ohio stating that Moore’s activity 
did not constitute the unauthorized practice of law. 
 
But respondent went further than merely leasing space to Moore.  He 
listed Moore on his letterhead captioned “Tyrone E. Reed & Associates” as  
“Cornell Moore (Lic. in PA Only).”  On his own initiative, respondent placed an 
advertisement in the telephone Yellow Pages that read1:  “Reed, Tyrone E. & 
Associates/ Bankruptcy / Criminal / Divorce & Family Law / Personal Injury / 
For Consultation Call / Tyrone E. Reed / Nicole C. Longino / Cornell Moore,” 
followed by Reed’s office address and phone number, creating the impression that 
Moore was an attorney associated with respondent.  And respondent split his legal 
fees with Moore on cases referred to him by Moore. 
 
The panel concluded that respondent’s conduct violated DR 3-101(A) (a 
lawyer shall not aid a nonlawyer in the unauthorized practice of law), 3-102 (a 
lawyer or law firm shall not share legal fees with a nonlawyer), and 1-102(A)(5) 
(a lawyer shall not engage in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice).  
In mitigation, the panel found that respondent had relied on the letters from the 
bar association and Disciplinary Counsel and did not believe that he was engaging 
in unethical behavior.  The panel received testimony and letters to the effect that 
respondent was an attorney of the utmost integrity and professionalism and noted 
that in 1998, when he discovered that there might be an ethical problem in his 
association with Moore, he terminated all relationship with Moore. 
 
The panel recommended that respondent receive a public reprimand.  The 
board adopted the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the panel. 
                                                          
 
1. 
The advertisement was one column wide, two inches high.  The slash marks herein 
indicate line breaks in the advertisement. 
January Term, 2002 
3 
 
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. 
__________________ 
 
Bruce P. Mandel and Pamela E. Loesel, for relator. 
 
Richard S. Koblentz and Craig J. Morice, for respondent. 
__________________