Case Title: Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Spitz

Citation: 2000-Ohio-122

Docket Number: 

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2000-05-31T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Spitz, 89 Ohio St.3d 117, 2000-Ohio-122.] 
 
 
 
 
 
 
CINCINNATI BAR ASSOCIATION v. SPITZ. 
[Cite as Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Spitz (2000), 89 Ohio St.3d 117.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Indefinite suspension — Sharing a legal fee 
with a nonlawyer — Engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, 
deceit, or misrepresentation — Failure to cooperate in a disciplinary 
investigation. 
(No. 99-1898 — Submitted February 9, 2000 — Decided May 31, 2000.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 97-56. 
 
In early 1991, respondent, Gregory G. Spitz of Cincinnati, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0000794, prepared a deed and a trust for George Szucs under an 
arrangement that respondent had with Marilyn T. Matho.  Matho, a nonattorney, 
received $1,195 from Szucs, and Matho dispersed $597.50, exactly one-half of the 
amount received from Szucs, to respondent. 
 
While investigating an unrelated matter in 1996, relator, the Cincinnati Bar 
Association, learned about this transaction.  Relator then asked respondent for the 
details of this transaction.  Respondent denied, in a letter dated October 30, 1996, 
having a fee-sharing arrangement with Matho.  Respondent did state that Matho 
had engaged him to research some questions regarding Ohio trust law, for which 
 
 
2
she paid him “five or six hundred dollars to the best of my recollection.”  In this 
letter, respondent claimed that he directed Matho to refer any clients for deeds 
directly to him.  He admitted preparing a deed for Szucs, for which he received 
$50, but he denied sharing this money with Matho.  He further denied preparing 
any “trust for this mystery person nor did I receive $600.00 for doing any trust.” 
 
Relator, in a letter dated January 6, 1997, noted conflicting accounts 
regarding the trust transaction and asked respondent to submit “copies of any 
invoices showing any bills which you may have rendered to Ms. Matho or her 
business partner for legal representation.”  Respondent, on February 5, 1997, sent 
relator an invoice he claimed was a copy of the one he sent to Matho on December 
20, 1990.  The invoice was on letterhead listing respondent’s former office address 
where respondent had conducted his practice in 1990.  The invoice indicated a 
billing to Matho for: 
 
“Legal consultation and research on Ohio Trust Law 
 
 
    $590.00 
 
                                          Copying fee               7.50 
 
                                          TOTAL DUE       $597.50” 
 
In fact, respondent had retrieved old stationary and prepared a phony 
invoice.  Later, at a deposition taken by relator, respondent still maintained that he 
 
 
3
had billed Matho for researching Ohio trust law and denied preparing a trust for 
Szucs or sharing legal fees with Matho. 
 
On June 16, 1997, relator filed a complaint charging respondent, in two 
counts, with violating DR 3-102 (sharing a legal fee with a nonlawyer) and 1-
102(A)(4) (engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or 
misrepresentation).  Relator also charged respondent with a violation of Gov.Bar 
R. V(4)(G) (failure to cooperate in a disciplinary investigation). 
 
At a hearing before a panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances 
and Discipline of the Supreme Court (“board”), respondent admitted that the 
claims he had made in his October 30, 1996 letter were not true.  He also admitted 
that he had fabricated the invoice to appear like a 1990 invoice.  He further 
admitted that he had lied under oath about his arrangement with Matho and the 
fabricated invoice at his deposition.  He explained that he panicked when relator 
confronted him and reacted in the way he did. 
 
The panel found that respondent had violated DR 3-102 and 1-102(A)(4).  
The panel concluded that while the fee-splitting arrangement did not “by itself 
warrant a harsh sanction, [respondent’s] conduct and actions in attempting to 
cover-up the fee splitting were particularly egregious.”  The panel also concluded 
that respondent was not truthful in his testimony at the hearing.  The panel, in 
addition, observed that respondent had received a six-month suspension in 1991 
 
 
4
for engaging in other dishonest, fraudulent, and deceitful conduct and 
misrepresentation.  Consequently, the panel recommended that we indefinitely 
suspend respondent from the practice of law. 
 
The board adopted the findings of fact and conclusions of law of the panel, 
and likewise recommended that we indefinitely suspend respondent from the 
practice of law in Ohio. 
__________________ 
 
Deborah DeLong and Naomi C. Dallob, for relator. 
 
H. Fred Hoefle, for respondent. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam.  In Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Spitz (1991), 62 Ohio St.3d 178, 
179, 580 N.E.2d 1071, 1072, we disciplined respondent for lying to his clients 
about filing a suit on their behalf and preparing a “sham” brief to convince them of 
his continued efforts in the case.  He then told his clients that the judge “had 
thrown their case out,” rendering further action futile.  For these deceitful actions, 
we suspended respondent from the practice of law for six months. 
 
Respondent did not learn from his previous suspension.  When confronted 
with an investigation for his improper conduct in this case, respondent responded 
with lies and another sham document.  We must reply with a more serious penalty 
than in respondent’s previous case.  Accordingly, we adopt the findings, 
 
 
5
conclusions, and recommendation of the board.  We hereby indefinitely suspend 
respondent from the practice of law.  Costs taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur.