Title: Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Nusbaum

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Nusbaum, 93 Ohio St.3d 150, 2001-Ohio-1305] 
 
 
CLEVELAND BAR ASSOCIATION v. NUSBAUM. 
[Cite as Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Nusbaum (2001), 93 Ohio St.3d 150.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Public reprimand — Advancing client 
approximately $26,000 for living expenses. 
(No. 01-745 — Submitted May 30, 2001 — Decided August 15, 2001.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 00-60. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam.  From March 1995 until December 1997, respondent, Alan 
H. Nusbaum of Cleveland, Ohio, Attorney Registration No. 0003642, represented 
Mark Jaks, who was severely injured in a motorcycle-truck collision.  During the 
last few months that the case was pending in the Geauga County Court of 
Common Pleas, respondent advanced funds to Jaks for living expenses because 
Jaks was unable to work.  After the case was settled in December 1997, Jaks 
repaid the loans. 
 
On August 14, 2000, relator, Cleveland Bar Association, filed a complaint 
charging that respondent violated DR 5-103(B) of the Code of Professional 
Responsibility by making loans to Jaks.  Respondent answered, and the matter 
was referred to a panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline (“board”). 
 
Based on agreed stipulations of the parties, the panel found that while 
representing Jaks, respondent advanced living expenses to him in the approximate 
amount of  $26,000, and concluded that such conduct violated DR 5-103(B) 
(while representing a client in connection with contemplated or pending litigation, 
a lawyer shall not advance or guarantee financial assistance to the client, except 
expenses of litigation).  In mitigation, the panel noted that no previous 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
disciplinary actions had been filed against respondent during his twenty-nine 
years of practice.  It noted that Jaks was not harmed but helped by the loans and 
that the grievance was filed by respondent’s ex-wife.  The panel also received in 
mitigation numerous letters attesting to respondent’s good character.  Among the 
letters was one from Jaks, who said that he considered respondent to be a friend, 
that because of his injury he had to undergo twenty operations and was unable to 
work, and that he could not have survived without respondent’s help in obtaining 
the basic necessities of life.  Jaks also claimed that without respondent’s 
assistance he would have had to settle earlier for a lesser amount.  The panel 
recommended that respondent receive a public reprimand. 
 
The board adopted the findings, conclusion, and recommendation of the 
panel. 
 
On review of the record, we adopt the findings, conclusion, and 
recommendation of the board.  Respondent is hereby publicly reprimanded.  Costs 
are taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur. 
 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, J., concurs separately. 
__________________ 
 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, J., concurring.  I reluctantly concur in the 
decision of this court.  DR 5-103(B) was quite clearly violated.  Good reasons 
exist for the rule.  However, in this case, I believe respondent’s action was only 
altruistic―helping a friedn who suffered a serious motorcycle accident who had 
to undergo twenty subsequent operations.  There was no financial incentive and 
no financial gain.  But Jaks does admit that such assistance enabled him to hold 
out for a larger settlement, which is perhaps one of the justifications for the rule.  
Therefore, I reluctantly concur. 
January Term, 2001 
3 
__________________ 
 
Gary H. Goldwasser and Thomas R. Wolf, for relator. 
 
Mary L. Cibella and Gerald A. Messerman, for respondent. 
__________________