Case Title: Dayton Bar Assn. v. Susco

Citation: 2000-Ohio-446

Docket Number: 19992263

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2000-05-24T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as Dayton Bar Assn. v. Susco, 89 Ohio St.3d 79, 2000-Ohio-446.] 
 
 
 
 
 
DAYTON BAR ASSOCIATION v. SUSCO. 
[Cite as Dayton Bar Assn. v. Susco (2000), 89 Ohio St.3d 79.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Public reprimand — Dividing a fee for legal 
services with another lawyer without prior consent of client. 
(No. 99-2263 — Submitted February 9, 2000 — Decided May 24, 2000.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 98-12. 
 
On February 5, 1999, relator, Dayton Bar Association, filed an amended 
complaint charging respondent, Michael E. Susco of Dayton, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0029660, with several violations of the Code of Professional 
Responsibility.  Respondent waived his right to a formal hearing, and a panel of 
the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court 
(“board”) considered the matter on stipulated facts. 
 
The panel found that in 1995, respondent, who practiced law almost 
exclusively in the area of workers’ compensation, was handling approximately five 
thousand workers’ compensation claims.  About one thousand of those claims were 
“active,” while the remaining claims were “dormant” due in part to changes in 
workers’ compensation law that went into effect in early 1995. 
 
 
2
 
In an attempt to lighten his caseload, respondent decided to concentrate his 
practice upon clients whose workers’ compensation claims had been appealed to 
the court of common pleas.  Respondent agreed to suggest the Cincinnati law firm 
of Harris & Burgin to his other clients, and the firm agreed to pay respondent one 
third of each legal fee received from the client, based upon work performed, 
provided the client consented.  Respondent did not notify his clients of the fee 
agreement with Harris & Burgin, nor did he obtain a written agreement from the 
clients concerning the division of fees.  Respondent also failed to notify his clients 
as to the identity of all the lawyers who would be sharing in the fee. 
 
In April 1996, respondent sent letters to his clients whose cases had not been 
appealed, suggesting that they contact Harris & Burgin.  At least fifty of these 
letters were returned as undeliverable.  Respondent attempted to obtain correct 
addresses for those clients, and sent the letter out at least two more times. 
 
Some of respondent’s clients informed him that they did not want to be 
represented by Harris & Burgin.  Respondent referred them to other law firms that 
specialized in workers’ compensation with whom he did not have any fee 
arrangements. 
 
Based on these stipulated facts, the panel concluded that the respondent had 
violated DR 2-103(A) (except as authorized by the Disciplinary Rules, a lawyer 
shall not recommend employment of himself or an associate to a layperson who 
 
 
3
has not sought his advice) and 2-107(A) (a lawyer shall not divide a fee for legal 
services with another lawyer unless the client consents, and full responsibility is 
assumed by each attorney) of the Code of Professional Responsibility.  In 
mitigation, the panel found that the respondent had cooperated with the 
investigation and that the events were unlikely to occur again.  The panel 
recommended that respondent receive a public reprimand. 
 
The board concluded that respondent violated only DR 2-107(A) and 
recommended that respondent receive a public reprimand. 
__________________ 
 
David P. Williamson, for relator. 
 
Kegler, Brown, Hill & Ritter and Geoffrey Stern, for respondent. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam.  We adopt the findings, conclusion, 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.