Title: Medina Cty. Bar Assn. v. Grieselhuber

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

Medina County Bar Association v. Grieselhuber. 
[Cite as Medina Cty. Bar Assn. v. Grieselhuber (1997), ____Ohio 
St.3d___.] 
Attorneys at law -- Misconduct -- Public reprimand -- Violating 
Disciplinary Rules relating to attorney advertising. 
 
(No. 96-2783 -- Submitted February 19, 1997 -- Decided May 14, 
1997.) 
 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances 
and Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 95-52. 
 
On June 5, 1995, relator, Medina County Bar Association, filed a 
complaint against respondent, Pierre A. Grieselhuber of Strongsville, Ohio, 
Attorney Registration No. 0005648,  charging that respondent placed 
advertisements in the 1994-1995 Medina/Brunswick GTE Yellow Pages and 
the 1995-1996 Medina County Yellow Pages that violated the Disciplinary 
Rules relating to attorney advertising.  Respondent filed an answer denying 
any violations and further asserted that the advertising was within his 
constitutional rights and within the guidelines set down by the United States 
Supreme Court.  
 
2
 
As a result of a hearing on the complaint and answer, a panel of the 
Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme 
Court (“board”) on November 25, 1996, found that advertisements THAT 
respondent placed in the above-mentioned publications contained the 
heading “Body Injury Legal Centers” as a trade name, and concluded that 
such a designation violated DR 2-102(B) (a lawyer in private practice shall 
not practice under a trade name).  The panel also found that respondent’s  
trade name suggested that he had multiple legal centers.  In substance, 
however, in addition to his office in Strongsville, respondent did some work 
in Huron, Ohio, at the offices of a friend, knew two or three lawyers in Port 
Clinton, Ohio, with whom he considered working, maintained a boat and a 
condominium in Port Clinton, and was considering working with former 
classmates in Florida. 
 
The panel found that the words, “Pierre A. Grieselhuber and 
Affiliates,” which appeared below the trade name in the advertisements, 
suggested that respondent had affiliates.  In fact, he was a sole practitioner 
and did not have “affiliates,” although at one time attorneys had shared 
space with him.  The panel also found that the words in the advertisements, 
 
3
“Practice limited to representing the Injured across the Country and around 
the World,” were misleading because respondent did some work in other 
areas of the law.  While his national experience consisted in having done 
some business in twenty-three other states, his international experience was 
related to having some clients from foreign countries and  having been 
admitted pro hac vice in the British Virgin Islands.  The panel concluded 
that these misleading representations violated DR 2-101(A)(1) (a lawyer 
shall not use any form of public communication that contains false, 
fraudulent, misleading, or deceptive statements). 
 
The panel additionally found that the words “WE GET PAID FROM OUR 
RECOVERY OF MONEY DAMAGES FOR YOU” failed to inform prospective 
clients about the costs and expenses of litigation and concluded that 
respondent had violated DR 2-101(E)(1)(c) (contingent fees may be 
communicated provided that the statement discloses that litigant could be 
liable for the payment of court costs and expenses).  The panel also found 
that the words “We Do It Well,” which appeared in the 1994-1995 
advertisement, were not verifiable and concluded that their use constituted a 
violation of  DR 2-101(A)(4) (a lawyer shall not use any for of public 
 
4
communication that contains a claim that is not verifiable).  The panel found 
that respondent’s violations were the result of error, not malice, and that no 
one had been misled or otherwise harmed by the advertisements.  Hence the 
panel recommended that respondent receive a public reprimand.  The board 
agreed with the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the panel. 
____________________________________ 
 
Patricia A. Walker and Stephen J. Brown, for relator. 
 
Pierre Grieselhuber, pro se. 
____________________________________ 
 
Per Curiam.  We recognize that advertising assists  the public in the 
selection of an attorney. EC 2-9.  However, our Ethical Considerations, 
which represent the objectives toward which every member of the 
profession should strive warn that “[m]ethods of advertising that are false, 
misleading or deceptive should be and are prohibited.”  EC 2-9.  To enable 
attorneys to meet these ethical objectives, our Disciplinary Rules provide 
specific guidelines for the content of  public communications by attorneys.  
Underlying these guidelines is the standard of truthfulness. 
 
5
 
We accept the findings of the board and agree with its conclusions 
that the advertisements of respondent contain unverifiable as well as 
misleading statements.  We further agree with the board that the wording in 
respondent’s advertisements violates specific Disciplinary Rules. 
 
Respondent’s claim that his advertisements are within the guidelines 
regarding commercial speech by professionals set out by the United States 
Supreme Court is inaccurate.  For example, DR 2-102(B) proscribes the 
practice of law under a trade name, a restriction found to be valid with 
respect to professional optometrists in Friedman v. Rogers (1979), 440 U.S. 
1, 99 S. Ct. 887, 59 L.Ed. 2d 100.  DR 2-101(E)(1)(c) requires that 
infomation regarding contingent fees be accompanied by a statement that 
the litigant might be liable for costs and expenses.  The Supreme Court 
found such a restriction to be valid in Zauderer v. Office of Disciplinary 
Counsel (1985), 471 U.S. 626, 652-653, 105 S. Ct. 2265, 2282-2283, 85 
L.Ed.2d 652, 673.  In short, our Disciplinary Rules do not infringe on 
respondent’s right of commercial speech. 
 
We further agree with the recommendation of the board.  Respondent 
is hereby publicly reprimanded.  Costs taxed to respondent. 
 
6
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Judgment accordingly.  
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK 
and LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur.