Title: Mahoning Cty. Bar Assn. v. Reid

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as Mahoning Cty. Bar Assn. v. Reid, 102 Ohio St.3d 402, 2004-Ohio-3121.] 
 
 
MAHONING COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION v. REID. 
[Cite as Mahoning Cty. Bar Assn. v. Reid, 102 Ohio St.3d 402 , 2004-Ohio-
3121.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Public reprimand — Continuing employment 
by multiple clients where independent professional judgment on a 
client’s behalf is likely to be adversely affected by representation of 
another client. 
(No. 2004-0512 ─ Submitted May 11, 2004 ─ Decided July 7, 2004.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 03-014. 
____________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} On July 12, 2000, a client retained the law firm of Harshman, 
Gervellis and Bernard, n.k.a. Harshman, Bernard and Ramage, to represent him 
for injuries he sustained when a car turned in front of him and another person 
while they were riding motorcycles.  The firm assigned the case to respondent, 
Wayne P. Reid of Youngstown, Ohio, Attorney Registration No. 0066124. 
{¶ 2} On August 1, 2000, the other motorcyclist also retained the 
Harshman law firm for injuries sustained in the accident.  The firm assigned the 
second client’s case to respondent as a “companion” to the first client’s case. 
{¶ 3} On August 16, 2000, the second client advised respondent that in 
addition to being struck by the car, he believed that the first client’s motorcycle 
had also hit him during the accident.  Respondent also determined that the driver 
of the car had a $100,000 single-limit automobile insurance policy, which could 
require an evaluation of the policy limit for both clients’ claims. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
{¶ 4} In December 2000, respondent spoke to another attorney in the 
Harshman firm, who agreed that the representation of both clients created a 
conflict.  Respondent did not discuss the conflict with either client, however, and 
continued to represent both. 
{¶ 5} On April 25, 2001, respondent obtained a settlement on behalf of 
the second client with the driver’s insurance company.  The settlement amount 
was $94,633, which constituted the $100,000 policy limit less the amount paid for 
damage to the second client’s motorcycle. 
{¶ 6} In July 2001, respondent left the Harshman law firm.  In August 
2001, the law firm referred the clients to attorneys outside the firm.  The attorney 
to whom the second client was referred to did not accept his case concerning a 
possible claim against the first client.  The first client, through his new attorney, 
filed a lawsuit in Pennsylvania, and he ultimately received an arbitration decision 
of over $3,000. 
{¶ 7} On February 10, 2003, relator, Mahoning County Bar Association, 
filed a complaint charging respondent with violating certain Disciplinary Rules.  
A panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the 
Supreme Court heard the matter upon the stipulated facts, testimony, and exhibits 
offered by the parties. 
{¶ 8} The panel found the facts as previously set forth and concluded 
that, consistent with the parties’ stipulations, respondent’s conduct violated DR 5-
105(B) (prohibiting continued employment by multiple clients where lawyer’s 
independent professional judgment on a client’s behalf is likely to be adversely 
affected by lawyer’s representation of another client). 
{¶ 9} In mitigation, the panel found that respondent had no prior 
disciplinary record, lacked a dishonest motive, and fully cooperated in the 
disciplinary proceedings.  In addition, relator’s investigation revealed no 
monetary prejudice to the clients from respondent’s misconduct.  Several 
January Term, 2004 
3 
individuals, including judges and attorneys, submitted letters to the panel 
commending respondent’s moral character and legal competence.  Respondent 
testified that he was involved in a lengthy divorce and custody battle at the time 
the conflict arose and that his misconduct would not likely happen again. 
{¶ 10} The parties agreed that a public reprimand would be an appropriate 
sanction.  The panel concurred and recommended that respondent be publicly 
reprimanded.  The board adopted the panel’s findings of fact, conclusions of law, 
and recommendation, and further recommended that the costs of the proceedings 
be taxed to respondent. 
{¶ 11} We agree with the board’s recommended sanction.  To determine 
the appropriate sanction, we analyze “the duties violated, the actual injury caused, 
the attorney’s mental state, the existence of aggravating or mitigating 
circumstances, and sanctions imposed in similar cases.”  Stark Cty. Bar Assn. v. 
Buttacavoli, 96 Ohio St.3d 424, 2002-Ohio-4743, 775 N.E.2d 818, ¶ 16. 
{¶ 12} Respondent violated his duty to his clients, DR 5-105(B), but the 
record lacks clear and convincing evidence that his misconduct harmed them.  
And mitigating factors exist:  lack of a prior disciplinary record, absence of a 
dishonest motive, full disclosure and cooperation in the disciplinary proceedings, 
and good character and reputation.  See Sections 10(B)(2)(a), (b), (d), and (e) of 
the Rules and Regulations Governing Procedure on Complaints and Hearings 
Before the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline. 
{¶ 13} In comparable cases, we have publicly reprimanded attorneys who 
violated DR 5-105(B) where there existed some of the same mitigating factors 
present here.  See, e.g., Toledo Bar Assn. v. Tolliver (1992), 62 Ohio St.3d 462, 
463, 584 N.E.2d 670 (mitigating factors included no prior record of disciplinary 
action and no harm resulting from respondent’s actions); Stark Cty. Bar Assn. v. 
Phillips (1989), 45 Ohio St.3d 286, 287-288, 544 N.E.2d 237 (no prior 
disciplinary record and good reputation in legal community). 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
{¶ 14} Based on the foregoing, a public reprimand is the proper sanction.  
Accordingly, respondent is hereby publicly reprimanded for having violated DR 
5-105(B).  Costs are taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, 
O’CONNOR and O’DONNELL, JJ., concur. 
____________________ 
 
David C. Comstock Jr. and Ronald E. Slipski, for relator. 
 
Arnold & Caruso, Ltd., and James D. Caruso, for respondent. 
____________________