Case Title: Wayne Cty. Bar Assn. v. Naumoff

Citation: 1996-Ohio-244

Docket Number: 19952179

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 1996-02-28T00:00:00Z

Document:
Wayne County Bar Association v. Naumoff. 
1 
[Cite as Wayne Cty. Bar Assn. v. Naumoff (1996), _____ Ohio St.3d _____.] 
2 
Attorneys at law -- Misconduct -- Six-month suspension -- Aiding a 
3 
non-lawyer in the unauthorized practice of law -- Delegating 
4 
tasks to lay persons without maintaining a direct relationship 
5 
with client. 
6 
 
(No. 95-2179--Submitted December 6, 1995--Decided February 28, 
7 
1996.) 
8 
 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances 
9 
and Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 94-45. 
10 
 
On June 20, 1994, relator, Wayne County Bar Association, filed a 
11 
complaint with the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline 
12 
of the Supreme Court (“board”) charging Mitchell Naumoff of Barberton, 
13 
Ohio, Attorney Registration No. 0037544, with two violations of the 
14 
Disciplinary Rules and one violation of the Ethical Considerations.  The 
15 
complaint alleges that Naumoff violated DR 3-101(A) (aiding a non-lawyer 
16 
in the unauthorized practice of law) and 5-107(B) (permitting a person who 
17 
recommends, employs, or pays him to render legal services for another to 
18 
direct or regulate his professional judgment in rendering such legal 
19 
 
2
services).  The complaint also alleged a violation of EC 3-6 (delegating 
1 
tasks to clerks, secretaries and other lay persons is proper if the lawyer 
2 
maintains a direct relationship with his client, supervises the delegated 
3 
work, and has complete professional responsibility for the work product).  
4 
The parties stipulated some facts, and a panel of the board heard the matter 
5 
on August 11, 1995. 
6 
 
In 1991, respondent became acquainted with Terry M. Sustar, who 
7 
operates the Data View Tax Service in Wooster, Ohio.  In September 1993, 
8 
Sustar asked respondent if Sustar could refer estate planning matters to 
9 
respondent.  Respondent then gave work sheets to Sustar for Sustar to 
10 
gather data for preparing legal documents.  Respondent developed a 
11 
working relationship with Sustar. 
12 
 
In that year, Mrs. Audry Peterman, a seventy-one-year-old widow 
13 
residing in Wayne County, attended two seminars conducted by Sustar.  
14 
Sustar gave Peterman work sheets for her to complete and forward directly 
15 
to respondent.  Respondent thereafter prepared documents for Peterman, 
16 
including a will, a living trust, financial power of attorney, health care 
17 
power of attorney, and a living will.  Respondent never met personally, nor 
18 
 
3
corresponded, with Peterman.  Respondent forwarded the documents to 
1 
Sustar for Peterman to execute on November 16, 1993.  Sustar collected a 
2 
fee of $731 from Mrs. Peterman for Sustar’s services, which included 
3 
respondent’s fee. 
4 
 
As a result of a question on the documents, Peterman contacted a 
5 
member of relator.  Relator subsequently filed the instant complaint. 
6 
 
Relator asked the board to publicly reprimand respondent; respondent 
7 
asked the board to dismiss the complaint. 
8 
 
Nevertheless, the panel found that respondent violated DR 3-101(A).  
9 
The panel ruled that finding a violation of this Disciplinary Rule did not 
10 
require, as a condition precedent, a judicial determination that Sustar had 
11 
engaged in an unauthorized practice of law.  The panel also found a 
12 
violation of EC 3-6.  Finally, the panel recommended that we suspend 
13 
respondent from the practice of law for six months and stay the suspension 
14 
on condition that respondent cease the conduct producing the violation. 
15 
 
The board adopted the findings of fact and conclusions and 
16 
recommendation of the panel.  The panel and the board did not base the 
17 
recommended sanction on the violation of EC 3-6. 
18 
 
4
 
Robert N. Gluck and G. Kenneth Barnard, for relator. 
1 
 
Timothy J. Truby, for respondent. 
2 
 
Per Curiam.  After reviewing the record, we adopt the board’s 
3 
findings and conclusions.  However, we note that we publicly reprimanded 
4 
respondent on October 16, 1991, for charging an excessive fee.  We, 
5 
therefore, impose an actual suspension of six months on respondent and tax 
6 
costs to him. 
7 
Judgment accordingly. 
8 
 
MOYER, C.J., WRIGHT, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER and COOK, JJ., 
9 
concur. 
10 
 
DOUGLAS and RESNICK, JJ., dissent. 
11 
 
DOUGLAS, J., dissenting.  I would adopt the penalty as recommended 
12 
by the board.  Because the majority does not do so, I respectfully dissent. 
13 
 
RESNICK, J., concurs in the foregoing dissenting opinion. 
14 
 
15