Case Title: Toledo Bar Assn. v. Ritson

Citation: 2002-Ohio-1047

Docket Number: 20011879

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2002-02-27T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as Toledo Bar Assn. v. Ritson, 94 Ohio St.3d 411, 2002-Ohio-1047.] 
 
 
TOLEDO BAR ASSOCIATION v. RITSON. 
[Cite as Toledo Bar Assn. v. Ritson (2002), 94 Ohio St.3d 411.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Public reprimand — Filing an action to 
recover medical insurance company’s subrogation interest without its 
knowledge or permission. 
(No. 01-1879 — Submitted December 12, 2001 — Decided February 27, 2002.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 01-40. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam.  On April 9, 2001, relator, Toledo Bar Association, filed a 
complaint charging respondent, Douglas J. Ritson of Toledo, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0060104, with several violations of the Code of Professional 
Responsibility.  Respondent answered the complaint, and a panel of the Board of 
Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court (“board”) 
heard the matter.  Based on the parties’ stipulations, the panel found that 
respondent had violated DR 2-103(A) (a lawyer should not recommend his 
professional representation to a nonlawyer who has not sought his advice); 1-
102(A)(5) (a lawyer should not engage in conduct prejudicial to the 
administration of justice) and (6) (a lawyer should not engage in conduct that 
adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law); and 6-101(A)(2) (a lawyer 
should not handle a legal matter without adequate preparation).  The panel 
recommended that respondent be publicly reprimanded for his misconduct, and 
the board accepted this recommendation, as well as the panel’s findings of fact 
and conclusions of law. 
 
We concur in the board’s decision.  Respondent stipulated that he 
committed the cited disciplinary infractions while assisting a client with the 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
administration of her late husband’s estate.  Respondent and the client agreed that 
he should attempt to obtain certain workers’ compensation benefits made 
available because her husband had died after sustaining an industrial injury.  In 
the course of this effort, respondent contacted the claims department of 
Paramount Health Care, which had paid medical bills on the husband’s behalf, 
and inquired about representing the carrier in recovering these costs from the 
husband’s former employer.  Paramount did not request respondent’s services.  
Respondent then filed an action, without Paramount Health Care’s knowledge or 
permission, to recover its subrogation interest, notwithstanding that a contract 
between the employer and Paramount prohibited the carrier from bringing such an 
action against the employer. 
 
Respondent has never before been the subject of disciplinary action, and 
he cooperated fully in relator’s investigation.  He also submitted letters from 
clients and colleagues, all of whom described their confidence in and respect for 
his professional competence.  In light of this mitigating evidence, we consider a 
public reprimand to be the appropriate sanction.  Respondent is, therefore, 
publicly reprimanded for his violations of DR 2-103(A), 1-102(A)(5) and (6), and 
6-101(A)(2). 
 
Costs are taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
 
Harold M. Steinberg, C. William Bair and Jonathan B. Cherry, for relator. 
 
James D. Caruso, for respondent. 
__________________