Case Title: Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Rinderknecht

Citation: 1997-Ohio-309

Docket Number: 19961993

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 1997-06-18T00:00:00Z

Document:
CINCINNATI BAR ASSOCIATION v. RINDERKNECHT. 
[Cite as Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Rinderknecht (1997), 79 Ohio St.3d 30.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Indefinite suspension — Soliciting business by 
telephone — Entering into agreement with and making payment to a non-
approved organization to promote services as an attorney — Giving 
unsolicited advice that persons should obtain legal counsel and then 
accepting employment from those persons — Accepting employment that 
attorney’s agent has recommended. 
(No. 96-1993 — Submitted March 4, 1997 — Decided June 18, 1997.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 95-13. 
 
In a complaint filed on February 6, 1995, and amended on October 10, 
1995, the Cincinnati Bar Association, relator, charged respondent, Edward G. 
Rinderknecht of Cincinnati, Ohio, Attorney Registration No. 0025845, with 
violations of the Disciplinary Rules.  In his answers, respondent denied violating 
any Disciplinary Rules and asked that the complaints be dismissed. 
 
A panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the 
Supreme Court (“board”) heard evidence in this case on January 31 and February 
1, 1996.  At this hearing, relator attempted to prove that respondent had conceived 
of a program, in conjunction with a business consultant and a doctor, in which 
recent accident victims would receive calls from employees of the program.  The 
caller would attempt to secure the medical and legal business of the accident 
victim for the doctor and respondent.  Relator also attempted to prove that 
respondent hired people to monitor police radio scanners and appear at accident 
scenes to secure the business of the accident victims for the doctor and respondent. 
Respondent attempted to prove that he did not participate in any such program. 
 
2
 
Nevertheless, the panel found that respondent hired Frank Lalli, a long-time 
business associate, to help respondent organize his office.  Respondent introduced 
Lalli to Dr. Robert Barner, a chiropractor.  Barner hired Lalli to market Barner’s 
chiropractic practice. 
 
To do this, Lalli created the Ohio Accident Assistance Program (“OAAP”).  
OAAP hired telephone solicitors to call accident victims to inform the victims 
about their rights, including receiving medical care and legal representation.  In 
reality, OAAP attempted to steer business to Barner and respondent.  Respondent 
paid OAAP $1,075 per month for this service. 
 
Respondent and Barner also paid Robert “L.A.” Jackson to drive individuals 
to and from their offices for appointments.  According to the testimony, Jackson 
monitored a police scanner for accidents.  On learning of an accident, he appeared 
at the scene, sometimes before the police arrived, and offered to transport the 
victim to see Barner and respondent.  Jackson received between $100 and $200 for 
each referral. 
 
Under Count I, Dale Daniels received a telephone call at his house from 
OAAP following his automobile collision.  OAAP set Daniels up with 
appointments to see Barner and respondent.  The caller also set up similar 
appointments for Dante Seta, an acquaintance of Daniels, who was also injured in 
the collision. 
 
The panel found that respondent had violated DR 2-101(F)(1) (soliciting 
business by telephone), 2-103(B) and (C) (entering into agreement with and 
making payment to a non-approved organization to promote services as an 
attorney), and 2-104(A) (giving unsolicited advice that persons should obtain legal 
counsel and then accepting employment from those persons). 
 
3
 
As to Count II, Andrea Jones and Devon Flowers received telephone calls 
after an automobile collision from a person named “Roxanne,” who stated that she 
worked for an agency that could help them.  On Roxanne’s recommendation, 
Jones scheduled appointments with respondent.  According to the testimony, a 
Roxanne Jacobs worked for Barner and respondent at the time the telephone calls 
were made. 
 
The panel found that respondent had violated the same Disciplinary Rules 
as in Count I. 
 
Finally, as to Count III, Frank C. Walker was in an automobile accident.  
Jackson appeared at the scene immediately and approached Walker.  Jackson gave 
Walker respondent’s business card, on the back of which was Jackson’s pager 
number, and recommended that Walker should retain respondent.  Relator claims 
that Jackson received $100 for Walker’s referral. 
 
The panel found that respondent had violated DR 2-101(F)(1), 2-103(A) and 
(B) (accepting employment that an attorney’s agent has recommended), and 2-
104(A). 
 
The panel recommended that the court indefinitely suspend respondent from 
the practice of law in Ohio.  The board adopted the findings of fact, conclusions of 
law, and recommendation of the panel.  Respondent objects to these findings and 
urges the court to dismiss the case or, alternatively, to issue a much less severe 
sanction.  Relator objects to the findings and asks the court to permanently disbar 
respondent. 
__________________ 
 
John B. Pinney and James L. O’Connell, for relator. 
 
H. Fred Hoefle, for respondent. 
__________________ 
 
4
 
Per Curiam.  We reject respondent’s arguments that the panel incorrectly 
admitted the statement of a co-conspirator and that relator did not prove the 
violations by clear and convincing evidence.  Furthermore, we accept the findings, 
conclusions, and recommended sanction of the board.  Accordingly, we 
indefinitely suspend respondent from the practice of law in Ohio and tax costs to 
him. 
 Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur.