Case Title: Disciplinary Counsel v. Mason

Citation: 2010-Ohio-1467

Docket Number: 20092245

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2010-04-07T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
Disciplinary Counsel v. Mason, Slip Opinion No. 2010-Ohio-1467.] 
 
 
NOTICE 
This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in 
an advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports.  Readers are requested 
to promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 
65 South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographical or 
other formal errors in the opinion, in order that corrections may be 
made before the opinion is published. 
 
SLIP OPINION NO. 2010-OHIO-1467 
DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. MASON. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as Disciplinary Counsel v. Mason,  
Slip Opinion No. 2010-Ohio-1467.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Payments for recommending a lawyer’s 
services — Consent-to-discipline agreement — Public reprimand. 
(No. 2009-2245 — Submitted January 13, 2010 — Decided April 7, 2010.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 09-037. 
__________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Ronald Lee Mason of Dublin, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0030110, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1978.  
On June 9, 2009, relator, Disciplinary Counsel, charged respondent with a single 
violation of Prof.Cond.R. 7.2(b) (prohibiting a lawyer from giving anything of 
value to a person for recommending the lawyer’s services).  A panel of the Board 
of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline considered the cause on the 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
parties’ consent-to-discipline agreement.  See Section 11 of the Rules and 
Regulations Governing Procedure on Complaints and hearings Before the Board 
of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline (“BCGD Proc.Reg.”). 
Misconduct 
{¶ 2} The stipulated facts of this case show that respondent is the 
principal of Mason Law Firm Co., L.P.A. (“Mason Law”), a four-attorney firm 
primarily representing management and employers in employment, OSHA, labor, 
and construction matters.  He is also the owner of and general counsel for 
Midwest Management Consultants, Inc. (“Midwest Management”), a wholly 
owned subsidiary and ancillary business to Mason Law, that provides OSHA and 
employment consulting services for employers.  Mason Law and Midwest 
Management share an office in Dublin, Ohio. 
{¶ 3} Midwest Management employed William Wheeler, a non-lawyer 
consultant who is recognized by the United States Department of Labor as a 
“registered persuader” – a person who speaks directly with company employees 
to promote union avoidance.  Pursuant to Wheeler’s employment agreement, he 
was to receive 40 percent of the fees Midwest Management billed and collected 
for work he actually performed and 15 percent of the fees billed and collected 
from any work he initiated, regardless of whether he performed the actual work. 
{¶ 4} In 2007, Midwest Management billed and collected $82,906.25 for 
the work Wheeler performed (473.75 hours x $175 per hour), and Wheeler was 
entitled to receive $33,162.50 ($82,906.25 x .4).  Midwest Management also 
collected $64,924.50 for work Wheeler initiated in 2007.  Therefore, Wheeler was 
entitled to receive additional compensation of $9,739.12 ($64,924.50 x .15).  
Thus, pursuant to his employment agreement, Wheeler was entitled to 
compensation of $42,901.62 for 2007.  However, during that year Midwest 
Management actually paid Wheeler $112,484. 
January Term, 2010 
3 
 
{¶ 5} The difference between the amount Wheeler was entitled to 
receive pursuant to his employment agreement and the amount he actually 
received – $69,582.57 – represents referral fees paid by Midwest Management for 
eight clients Wheeler referred to Mason Law.  Those clients paid $486,894.02 in 
legal fees to Mason Law in 2007.  Beginning in 2008, Midwest Management paid 
Wheeler a straight salary and no longer compensated him for referring clients to 
Mason Law. 
{¶ 6} The parties stipulated that respondent’s conduct violated 
Prof.Cond.R. 7.2(b). 
Sanction 
{¶ 7} In recommending a sanction, the panel considered the aggravating 
and mitigating factors listed in BCGD Proc.Reg. 10.  Consistent with the parties’ 
stipulation, the panel found the following mitigating factors: (1) respondent has 
no prior disciplinary record, (2) respondent provided full and free disclosure 
during relator’s investigation and has displayed a cooperative attitude toward the 
disciplinary proceedings, (3) respondent has made a timely, good faith effort to 
rectify the consequences of his misconduct, and (4) respondent is of good 
character and reputation.  See BCGD Proc. Reg. 10(B)(2)(a), (c), (d), and (e).  
There is no evidence demonstrating any aggravating factors.  See BCGD 
Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1). 
{¶ 8} Both the panel and the board accepted the parties’ consent-to-
discipline agreement, including the finding of misconduct and recommended 
sanction.  We agree that respondent violated Prof.Cond.R. 7.2(b) and that, 
consistent with the parties’ agreement, this conduct warrants a public reprimand.  
We have imposed a similar sanction in Lake County Bar Assn. v. Patterson 
(1980), 64 Ohio St.2d 163, 18 O.O.3d 382, 413 N.E.2d 840, for a violation of DR 
2-103(B) (barring a lawyer from compensating or giving something of value to a 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
person to recommend or secure the lawyer’s employment, or as a reward for 
having made a recommendation resulting in the lawyer’s employment). 
{¶ 9} On the board’s recommendation, we accept the consent-to-
discipline agreement.  Accordingly, respondent is hereby publicly reprimanded 
for his violation of Prof.Cond.R. 7.2(b).  Costs are taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, 
C.J.,1 
and 
PFEIFER, 
LUNDBERG 
STRATTON, 
O’CONNOR, 
O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, and CUPP, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
Jonathan E. Coughlan, Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. 
Kegler, Brown, Hill & Ritter Co., L.P.A., Rasheeda Z. Kahn, and 
Geoffrey Stern, for respondent. 
______________________ 
                                                 
1.  The late Chief Justice Thomas J. Moyer participated in the deliberations in, and the final 
resolution of, this case prior to his death.