Case Title: Ohio State Bar Assn. v. Zuckerman

Citation: 1998-Ohio-125

Docket Number: 

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 1998-09-16T00:00:00Z

Document:
OHIO STATE BAR ASSOCIATION v. ZUCKERMAN. 
[Cite as Ohio State Bar Assn. v. Zuckerman (1998), ___ Ohio St.3d ___.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — One-year suspension — Compensating person 
for recommendation of employment — Requesting person to promote use of 
lawyer’s services — Dividing fees with lawyers not in the same firm without 
prior consent of client. 
(No. 97-2670 — Submitted June 9, 1998 — Decided September 16, 1998.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 97-39. 
 
Prior to 1994, respondent, Richard Zuckerman of Cleveland, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0025680, was co-counsel with David Linick, Senior Corporate 
Counsel of the Glidden Company, in several personal injury cases unrelated to 
Glidden matters.  In one such case, respondent and Linick failed to file a 
complaint within the statute of limitations and settled with their client for $5,000.  
Respondent and Linick each contributed $2,500 to the settlement amount.  
Thereafter, from the spring of 1994 through November 1995,  Linick referred 
several Glidden corporate matters to respondent, and respondent billed Glidden for 
his work.  Respondent’s bills were approved by Linick.  After being paid by 
Glidden for his legal work, respondent sent checks to Linick for exactly half the 
amount of the payments he had received from Glidden.  There was no overt 
agreement between respondent and Linick with respect to the fifty percent 
payments to Linick, but each understood that initially the payments were made to 
recoup the funds paid out in the settlement.  Glidden was not aware of 
respondent’s payments. 
 
Ohio State Bar Association, relator, filed an amended complaint on July 15, 
1997, charging, inter alia, that respondent’s conduct violated DR 2-103(B) (a 
 
2
lawyer shall not compensate a person to recommend or secure the lawyer’s 
employment by a client or as a reward for having made a recommendation 
resulting in the lawyer’s employment by a client), 2-103(C) (a lawyer shall not 
request a person to promote the use of a lawyer’s services), and 2-107(A) (fees 
may be divided by lawyers who are not in the same firm only with the prior 
consent of the client after written disclosure, and the division is in proportion to 
the work done by each attorney or all lawyers assume responsibility for the 
representation). 
 
Respondent filed his answer, 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 the facts as alleged and concluded that respondent 
violated the Disciplinary Rules as charged.  The panel received evidence in 
mitigation that respondent had practiced for twenty-six years without any prior 
disciplinary problems, and that he cooperated in the investigation by the 
Disciplinary Counsel.  The panel also received testimony from judges about 
respondent’s ability and character, and testimony about his illness and dependence 
on Prozac and about illness in his  family.  The panel recommended that 
respondent be publicly reprimanded.  The board adopted the findings, conclusions, 
and recommendation of the panel. 
__________________ 
 
William T. Monroe, Daniel J. Hughes, Eugene P. Whetzel and James 
Flaherty, for relator. 
 
Mary L. Cibella, for respondent. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam.  We adopt the findings and conclusions of the board, but 
believe a more severe sanction is warranted.  The Disciplinary Rules are clear.  No 
 
3
circumstance would have justified respondent’s payments to Linick whether they 
were characterized as fees or as gifts.  Respondent should have known that if 
Linick was to receive any portion of the fees Glidden paid to respondent, Linick 
was required by DR 2-107 to actually have done some work or at least have 
assumed responsibility for the handling of the matters.  Respondent should also 
have known that DR 2-103(B) prohibited him from paying any reward to Linick 
for his employment by Glidden. 
 
Respondent is hereby suspended from the practice of law in Ohio for one 
year.  Costs taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur.