Title: Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Worth

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

CINCINNATI BAR ASSOCIATION v. WORTH. 
[Cite as Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Worth (1998), 82 Ohio St.3d 305.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Public reprimand — Performing legal services 
for others after appointment as a referee/magistrate. 
(No. 98-385 — Submitted April 7, 1998 — Decided July 8, 1998.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 96-73. 
 
Robert W. Worth of Cincinnati, Ohio, Attorney Registration No. 0022604, 
respondent herein, was admitted to the bar in 1960.  After many years of private 
practice, he was hired by the Hamilton County Probate Court in February 1989, 
where he served as referee, and  later under the title of  “magistrate,” until he was 
discharged in February 1996. 
 
While he was referee/magistrate, respondent drafted several form wills, 
mostly for elderly friends and a relative. In 1990, Mary Higgins, an elderly lady 
who did not have a will, was a friend of respondent’s aunt.  As Higgins was about 
to be admitted to the hospital for an operation, the aunt asked respondent to 
prepare a will for Higgins.  As a favor for his aunt, and without charge to Higgins, 
respondent prepared a will for her.  In 1994, Esther M. Busch and Albert J. Busch, 
who were elderly and who had been long-time clients of respondent relying on 
him for advice on investments and on how to deal with family problems, asked 
respondent to update their wills.  Respondent did so without charge.  He also 
prepared a durable power of attorney for Albert.  In April 1995 Alyce Thomas, an 
elderly lady who was a member of respondent’s church, asked respondent to make 
some changes in a will he had drafted for her before he became a 
referee/magistrate.  Respondent made the changes Thomas requested without 
charge.  In October 1995, at the request of a long-time friend and church member, 
 
2
Harriet Trautman, respondent changed the executor in a will he had drafted for her 
before he became a referee/magistrate, and did not charge her for the service.  In 
September 1995, Mary M. Jervis, an elderly woman living on Social Security who 
had formerly been a secretary in respondent’s church, requested respondent’s 
assistance.  Respondent, without charge, prepared a power of attorney to allow 
Jervis’s daughter to handle real estate transactions for her.  In December 1995, 
Jean T. Horn and Clifford E. Horn, respondent’s closest friends for forty years and 
participants for twenty-eight years in a Bible study group with him, asked him to 
revise the wills he had prepared for them many years earlier.  Respondent made 
the changes without charge.  In 1996 Margaret M. and Russell L. Sammons, who 
were close friends of respondent and his wife, asked respondent to change the 
executor in their wills.  Respondent made the change and took the $60 Russell 
Sammons insisted on paying him.  In 1996, as respondent’s niece, Amy C. 
Schoettmer, was about to undergo surgery, she asked him to draft wills for her and 
her husband.  Respondent drafted the wills and received no fee.  Christian L. 
Weishaupt, an old client of respondent’s, died prior to respondent’s being 
appointed referee/magistrate.  Respondent opened the estate, and, at the time he 
was appointed, the estate was almost fully administered.  Respondent remained 
counsel of record after he was appointed, anticipating the sale of some Florida 
property.  When an action was filed against the estate by an ex-wife of one of the 
heirs in November 1991, respondent resigned as counsel. 
 
When respondent became referee/magistrate, his long-time friend, attorney 
Donald L. Weber of Cincinnati, succeeded him in a number of cases, and on some 
occasions respondent approved routine applications filed by Weber.  Weber 
replaced respondent as counsel to the Weishaupt estate, and respondent, while 
serving as referee/magistrate, approved an application by Weber for a routine 
 
3
extension of time to file documents in the case.  When Helen Tucker, an elderly 
former client of respondent, died, respondent declined to assume the role of 
executor as designated in Tucker’s will.  However, respondent’s wife, Tucker’s 
alternate executor, did qualify and used Weber as her attorney.  Respondent, 
without charge, helped his wife and Weber prepare routine documents in the case.  
Before he was appointed referee/magistrate, respondent was executor of the estate 
of Grant Terry.  Respondent remained executor after his appointment for the 
purpose of concluding the only remaining matter, a claim for a tax refund.  When 
the refund was denied, respondent closed the estate.  Respondent, counsel for the 
estate of his long-time neighbor, Robert K. Creighton, closed the case before his 
appointment as referee/magistrate.  After respondent’s appointment, the Creighton 
estate was reopened to administer newly discovered assets and Weber was 
appointed counsel.  Respondent helped Weber prepare some documents in the 
case.  As referee/magistrate, respondent approved a routine application to extend 
time filed by Weber in the case.  When Margaret O’Banion, a neighbor of 
respondent’s wife’s cousin, died, her son who lived out of town was appointed 
executor and employed Weber as his attorney.  Because the son knew respondent 
better than he knew Weber, he frequently called respondent to see how the case 
was going.  Respondent answered the inquiries and helped Weber get the matter 
settled expeditiously.  While serving as a referee/magistrate, respondent approved 
an inventory in the estate of Charles C. Bohn that was presented to him by Weber. 
 
None of  the persons for whom respondent drafted wills complained about 
his work.  Respondent did not charge for these activities, and the only outside 
income he received during the time he was referee/magistrate was the $60 paid by 
Sammons, and $1,600 that respondent and his wife received for care and support 
of his aunt who was confined to a home for the elderly.  This income was reported 
 
4
on Schedule C of respondent’s Federal Income Tax Return, but respondent 
neglected to report the $60 as outside income from legal services on his annual 
report to the Ethics Commission in 1996. 
 
On February 12, 1996, Judge Wayne F. Wilke summarily dismissed 
respondent from the position of referee/magistrate because Judge Wilke had 
received information that respondent had been practicing law. 
 
On October 15, 1996, relator, Cincinnati Bar Association, filed a complaint 
charging that these activities of  respondent constituted violations of his oath of 
office, the Code of Judicial Conduct, and the Code of Professional Responsibility.  
After respondent filed his answer, the matter was heard by a panel of the Board of 
Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court (“board”).  
The panel found the facts as stated, further found that respondent had not willfully 
filed false financial statements, and concluded that respondent had violated DR 1-
102(A)(5) (engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice). 
 
In mitigation, respondent submitted evidence that he had a good reputation 
among members of the bar and that no formal ethical complaint had been filed 
against him in thirty-seven years of lawyering.  He said that after many years the 
clients just kept coming back to him for advice and he could not say no.  He 
further stated that it was his impression from the judge who appointed him as 
referee/magistrate that he could complete cases he was working on so long as he 
did not administer the cases in court.  The panel recommended that respondent 
receive a public reprimand.  The board adopted the findings, conclusions, and 
recommendation of the panel. 
__________________ 
 
James C. Condit and Jon Hoffheimer, for relator. 
 
Edward C. Perry and James N. Perry, for respondent. 
 
5
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam.  We accept the findings and conclusions of the board.  In 
determining a sanction to be imposed, we consider the duty violated, the lawyer’s 
mental state, the injury caused, and the existence of aggravating or mitigating 
circumstances.  Warren Cty. Bar Assn. v. Bunce (1998), 81 Ohio St.3d 112, 115, 
689 N.E.2d 566, 568, and cases cited therein.  In this matter respondent should not 
have 
performed 
legal 
services 
for 
others 
after 
his 
appointment 
as 
referee/magistrate, however minor those services might have been.  Nevertheless, 
we note that respondent was not attempting to profit by these activities and that 
none of respondent’s clients was harmed by his activities. 
 
The sanction imposed on respondent by the probate court was to  discharge 
him from his position as referee/magistrate.  In view of that sanction, we agree 
with the board with respect to the sanction this court should  impose.  Respondent 
is hereby publicly reprimanded.  Costs taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., RESNICK, PFEIFER, COOK and LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., 
concur. 
 
DOUGLAS and F.E. SWEENEY, JJ., dissent because they would dismiss the 
action.