Title: Disciplinary Counsel v. Hartsock

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Hartsock, 94 Ohio St.3d 18, 2001-Ohio-6977.] 
 
 
OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. HARTSOCK. 
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Hartsock (2001), 94 Ohio St.3d 18.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Indefinite suspension — Conviction for mail 
fraud conspiracy — Providing insider settlement information to 
attorneys who represented plaintiffs against insurance company in 
exchange for kickbacks. 
(No. 01-1208 — Submitted August 28, 2001 — Decided December 19, 2001.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 00-83. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam.  From 1990 through 1999 respondent, Walter D. Hartsock, of 
Poland, Ohio, Attorney Registration No. 0031434, then a claims adjuster for 
Nationwide Insurance Company, provided insider settlement information to 
certain attorneys who represented plaintiffs with claims against Nationwide in 
exchange for kickbacks from the attorneys.  On May 31, 2000, after respondent 
was convicted in the United States District Court for mail fraud conspiracy in 
furtherance of these schemes, we suspended him from the practice of law for an 
interim period.  In re Hartsock (2000), 89 Ohio St.3d 1418, 729 N.E.2d 388. 
 
On October 9, 2000, relator, Office of Disciplinary Counsel, filed a 
complaint charging that respondent’s conduct in these kickback arrangements 
violated the Code of Professional Responsibility.  Respondent answered, and the 
matter was submitted to a panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances 
and Discipline (“board”) on stipulations and exhibits. 
 
Based on the stipulations of the parties and the information, plea 
agreement, and judgment in the United States District Court, the panel found that 
in one case, respondent told attorney Lawrence Seidita that he could make money 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
settling a particular case if someone could contact attorney Joseph Dubyak, who 
represented the plaintiff.  Seidita contacted attorney Stuart Banks, who in turn 
contacted Dubyak, who agreed to participate in the scheme.  With the inside 
information, Dubyak settled the case and gave a $15,000 kickback to Banks, who 
shared it with Seidita and respondent. 
 
In another case, respondent contacted Seidita and told him that he could 
provide information regarding a client of attorney Paul Gambrel to enable 
Gambrel to obtain a favorable settlement if Gambrel would pay a kickback.  
Gambrel agreed, settled the matter on the basis of the inside information from 
respondent, and paid a $2,500 kickback to respondent.  The use of the United 
States mail in the process of these schemes led to respondent’s conviction. 
 
The panel concluded that respondent’s actions violated DR 1-102(A)(3) (a 
lawyer shall not engage in illegal conduct involving moral turpitude), 1-102(A)(4) 
(a lawyer shall not engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or 
misrepresentation), 1-102(A)(5) (a lawyer shall not engage in conduct prejudicial 
to the administration of justice), and 1-102(A)(6) (a lawyer shall not engage in 
conduct adversely reflecting on the lawyer’s fitness to practice law).  The panel 
found that respondent cooperated in the investigation of his wrongdoing, and, 
noting the stipulation of relator and respondent to relator’s recommendation of an 
indefinite suspension, agreed that respondent should be indefinitely suspended 
from the practice of law.  The board adopted the findings, conclusions, and 
recommendation of the panel. 
 
In reviewing this matter, we first note that we previously suspended 
attorney Dubyak for his activity in connection with this kickback scheme, 
Disciplinary Counsel v. Dubyak (2001), 92 Ohio St.3d 18, 748 N.E.2d 26, as well 
as attorney Gambrel, Disciplinary Counsel v. Gambrel (2001), 94 Ohio St.3d 10, 
759 N.E.2d 771, announced today.  We further note that attorney Seidita has 
resigned from the practice of law.  In re Resignation of Seidita (2000), 90 Ohio 
January Term, 2001 
3 
St.3d 1209, 735 N.E.2d 894.  Upon consideration of the record, we adopt the 
findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the board with respect to 
respondent.  Respondent is hereby indefinitely suspended from the practice of law 
in Ohio.  Costs are taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
 
Jonathan E. Coughlan, Disciplinary Counsel, and Gloria J. Sigman, 
Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. 
 
Thomas C. Buford, for respondent. 
__________________