Title: Columbus Bar Assn. v. Moreland

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as Columbus Bar Assn. v. Moreland, 97 Ohio St.3d 492, 2002-Ohio-6726.] 
 
 
COLUMBUS BAR ASSOCIATION v. MORELAND. 
[Cite as Columbus Bar Assn. v. Moreland, 97 Ohio St.3d 492, 2002-Ohio-
6726.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Public reprimand — Improperly soliciting 
business, aiding in the unauthorized practice of law, and sharing legal 
fees with nonlawyers. 
(No. 2002-1462 — Submitted October 15, 2002 — Decided December 18, 2002.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 00-06. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶1} 
In this case, the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline found that respondent, Jay M. Moreland of Columbus, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0066281, violated the Code of Professional Responsibility by 
improperly soliciting business, aiding in the unauthorized practice of law, and 
sharing legal fees with nonlawyers.  The cause is now before us on certified report 
from the board, and we publicly reprimand respondent for his violations of the 
code. 
{¶2} 
Respondent was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1996.  
In mid-1998, respondent entered into a contract with ALMS, Ltd., L.L.P., a 
business that markets legal services.  Under the contract, ALMS would send 
direct-mail solicitations to potential clients for respondent’s estate-planning 
practice.  When potential clients responded to the solicitations, ALMS assigned 
customer services representatives (“CSRs”) to interview them.  The interview 
consisted of a sales talk by the CSR, stressing the benefits of establishing a living 
trust as compared to a will. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
{¶3} 
Although the CSRs disclaimed personal legal expertise, they 
would discuss the differences between a living trust and the probate of an estate, 
calculate the cost of probate, and compare it to respondent’s flat fee for the 
preparation of a living trust.  Prospective clients were usually elderly, having an 
average age of 72 years, and, in some cases, CSRs used obtrusive, high-pressure 
sales tactics. 
{¶4} 
Respondent did not actively monitor the initial interviews between 
CSRs and potential clients.  Only if questions arose during the interview would a 
CSR attempt to contact respondent.  Until potential clients had signed a 
representation agreement with the CSR and had paid a retainer, respondent 
usually did not speak to the potential clients or review the information that they 
had given the CSR.  Respondent relied on that information to determine whether a 
living trust was suitable for a client.  However, in only a few cases did respondent 
tell a client signed up by a CSR that a living trust was not suitable. 
{¶5} 
When a client decided to set up a living trust, a “delivery 
representative” was sent to notarize the client’s signature on the trust documents 
and other documents and to secure the documentation, such as deeds, necessary to 
fund a living trust.  Hired by a company affiliated with ALMS, delivery 
representatives were also supposed to sell insurance to the clients.  During the 
sales talk, the CSRs offered clients the opportunity to accept or reject financial 
“counseling” by the delivery representatives.  No matter whether a client accepted 
or rejected this counseling, the delivery representatives would try to sell the 
clients an annuity or policy. 
{¶6} 
Delivery representatives also annually reviewed with clients the 
status of the assets funding those clients’ living trusts.  During these annual 
reviews, they again tried to sell insurance to the clients. 
{¶7} 
ALMS recruited, interviewed, screened, and selected the CSRs and 
delivery representatives without respondent’s involvement.  Respondent did not 
January Term, 2002 
3 
determine who would receive the mailed solicitations, nor did he receive potential 
clients’ responses to mailed solicitations. 
{¶8} 
The CSRs paid their own expenses and received a commission for 
each client they signed up: $800 per client if the CSR enlisted three or more 
clients a week, $700 per client for two clients a week, $600 per client for one 
client a week.  CSRs were not paid for any solicitation that did not produce a 
signed representation agreement, nor were they paid if the client rescinded the 
agreement.  Delivery representatives also bore their own expenses and sold 
insurance on commission.  They were expected to earn between $100,000 and 
$150,000 annually, principally from selling insurance to respondent’s clients.  
The ALMS area director, who hired the CSRs, got $75 for each new client 
secured by a CSR.  Respondent paid ALMS a weekly service fee of between $180 
and $210 for each verified appointment with a potential client. 
{¶9} 
Each client who signed a representation agreement paid a fee of 
$1,995.  After fees and commissions to ALMS and its sales personnel, respondent 
received between $300 and $500 per client. 
{¶10} Each CSR and delivery representative received five days of initial 
training, only four hours of which were provided by respondent, with ALMS 
providing the rest.  CSRs and delivery representatives also received two-hour 
refresher training sessions, an hour of which respondent conducted.  Apart from 
the training given by respondent, the CSRs did not know whether the information 
contained in their sales talks was accurate. 
{¶11} During their training, CSRs were directed to answer only those 
questions from potential clients that respondent authorized them to answer.  CSRs 
were instructed to call respondent immediately if they had any doubt about the 
correct answer to a potential client’s question.  However, respondent made no 
effort to monitor the CSRs for compliance with these directions until relator 
began these proceedings against him. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
{¶12} Other than training and telephone conversations, respondent had 
little contact with, and seldom exercised control over, the CSRs and delivery 
representatives.  ALMS retained physical control of the personnel files of the 
CSRs and delivery representatives, set the amounts they were paid, and paid them 
through its own accounts.  Respondent has acknowledged that, before these 
proceedings began, he had failed to exercise the degree of control over CSRs that 
the Code of Professional Responsibility requires. 
{¶13} On July 3, 2001, relator, Columbus Bar Association, filed an 
amended complaint that charged respondent with violating several Disciplinary 
Rules.  A panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline was 
convened to consider the ensuing case.  Relator and respondent stipulated to the 
relevant facts, violations, and proposed sanction, and the case was presented to 
the panel on the basis of the stipulations. 
{¶14} The parties stipulated that respondent’s conduct violated DR 2-
101(A) (public communication or solicitation in a misleading, deceptive, and self-
laudatory manner); 3-101(A) (aiding a nonlawyer in the unauthorized practice of 
law); and 3-102(A) (sharing legal fees with a nonlawyer).  Relator withdrew its 
allegation that respondent had violated four other Disciplinary Rules.  The parties 
jointly recommended that respondent be publicly reprimanded, in view of 
respondent’s previously clean disciplinary record and his “modification of the 
way he secures clients.” 
{¶15} Based on the above stipulated facts, the panel prepared and filed 
with the board a report finding the stipulated violations and recommending a 
public reprimand.  The board adopted the panel’s findings of fact and conclusions 
of law but recommended a six-month suspension from the practice of law.  
Respondent thereupon moved that this court remand the case to the board for a 
hearing so that he could submit evidence in mitigation.  We granted the motion.  
Columbus Bar Assn. v. Moreland (2002), 94 Ohio St.3d 1497, 764 N.E.2d 441. 
January Term, 2002 
5 
{¶16} On remand, after hearing respondent’s evidence in mitigation, the 
panel found that several mitigating factors existed.  The panel relied in particular 
on respondent’s lack of experience, his full cooperation during the disciplinary 
process, and the absence of monetary harm to the public.  The panel also noted 
other mitigating factors: respondent’s previously clean record, the absence of a 
dishonest motive, and unchallenged testimonials to respondent’s good character.  
In light of the mitigating factors, the panel again recommended that respondent be 
publicly reprimanded for his misconduct.  The board adopted the panel’s findings 
and recommendation. 
{¶17} The facts of this case are undisputed, and we agree that respondent 
committed the misconduct found by the board.  In light of the substantial 
mitigating factors present in this case, we also agree with the board’s 
recommended sanction.  Accordingly, respondent is publicly reprimanded for 
violating DR 2-101(A), 3-101(A), and 3-102(A).  Costs are taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER and COOK, JJ., concur. 
 
MOYER, C.J., and LUNDBERG STRATTON, J., dissent and would suspend 
respondent from the practice of law for six months. 
__________________ 
 
Bruce Campbell, Bar Counsel, Jill M. Snitcher McQuain, Assistant Bar 
Counsel, Michael J. Hardesty and Louis A. Jacobs, for relator. 
 
Crabbe, Brown & James, Larry H. James and Christina L. Corl, for 
respondent. 
__________________