Title: Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Haas

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

CINCINNATI BAR ASSOCIATION v. HAAS. 
[Cite as Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Haas (1998), ___ Ohio St.3d ___.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — One-year suspension — Paying insurance 
company salesman for referring personal injury claimants. 
(No. 97-2640 — Submitted May 26, 1998 — Decided September 30, 1998.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 96-107. 
 
In 1990, respondent, Herbert Jaime Haas of Cincinnati, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0015411, entered into an arrangement with James Hearn, an 
insurance company salesman who was not an attorney, whereby Hearn would refer 
personal injury claimants to respondent in return for a portion of the fees at the 
conclusion of the case.  From 1990 through 1996, respondent represented twenty 
to thirty of the persons referred to him by Hearn and paid Hearn $22,160.38.  In 
1996, Hearn sued respondent for unpaid fees that he was entitled to receive and 
obtained a judgment in the amount of $977. 
 
On May 19, 1997, relator, Cincinnati Bar Association, filed an amended 
complaint charging that the arrangement between respondent and Hearn violated 
the Code of Professional Responsibility.  After respondent filed his answer, the 
matter was submitted to a panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court (“board”) on stipulated facts, the testimony of 
respondent expressing remorse, the testimony of a judge (appearing pursuant to 
subpoena) concerning respondent’s ability and good character, and letters with 
respect to respondent’s good character from five other attorneys, a court 
administrator, the executive director of a legal aid society, a public defender, and 
respondent’s rabbi. 
 
2
 
The panel found the facts as stipulated and concluded that respondent’s 
conduct violated DR 3-102(A) (sharing fees with a non-lawyer), 2-103(B) 
(compensating a person to recommend or secure employment of a client), and 2-
103(C) (requesting a person to recommend or promote the use of a lawyer’s 
services).  The panel recommended that respondent be suspended from the 
practice of law for two years with one of those years suspended.  The board 
adopted the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the panel. 
__________________ 
 
Robert J. Gehring and Maria C. Palermo, for relator. 
 
Mark A. Vander Laan, for respondent. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam.  We adopt the findings and conclusions of the board.  In 
Warren Cty. Bar Assn. v. Bunce (1998), 81 Ohio St.3d 112, 689 N.E.2d 566, we 
said that in imposing a sanction, we will take into account the duty violated, the 
mental state of the lawyer, the actual or potential injury caused by the misconduct, 
and the existence of mitigating factors.  The duty violated here is to refrain from 
compensating a third party to promote the use of a lawyer’s services.  While many 
persons refer counsel to others, when such a referral is the result of monetary 
influence, it lacks the reliability of a disinterested recommendation. Cf. 
Greenbaum, Lawyer’s Guide to the Ohio Code of Professional Responsibility 
(1996), at 189. 
 
On previous occasions we have imposed an indefinite suspension when 
attorneys have paid non-lawyers for referrals.  Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. White 
(1997), 79 Ohio St.3d 491, 684 N.E.2d 29; Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Rinderknecht 
(1997), 79 Ohio St.3d 30, 679 N.E.2d  669.  Each of  those cases, however, 
involved additional violations of the Disciplinary Rules.  Respondent’s conduct in 
 
3
this case did not involve other disciplinary infractions and respondent, who has 
had an otherwise exemplary record, appeared remorseful.  Respondent is hereby 
suspended from the practice of law in Ohio for one year.  Costs taxed to 
respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., 
concur. 
 
DOUGLAS and RESNICK, JJ., dissent and would stay a one-year suspension.