Case Name: Cleveland Bar Association v. Kates
Court: Supreme Court of Ohio
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1997-03-26
Citations: 78 Ohio St. 3d 69
Docket Number: No. 96-2373
Parties: Cleveland Bar Association v. Kates.
Judges: Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Ohio State Reports, Third Service
Volume: 78
Pages: 69–71

Head Matter:
Cleveland Bar Association v. Kates.
[Cite as Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Kates (1997), 78 Ohio St.3d 69.]
(No. 96-2373
Submitted December 11, 1996
Decided March 26, 1997.)
Elmer G. Cowan and Robert C. Tucker, for relator.
Robert A. Kates, pro se.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
We adopt the board's factual findings and conclude that by failing to pursue the action he filed for the Kerekis, respondent neglected a legal matter entrusted to him. For that neglect respondent deserves a public reprimand. However, we disagree with the board and do not find it clear and convincing that respondent violated DR 6-102 (attempting to exonerate himself from or limit his liability to his client for his personal malpractice) when, as a part of the settlement of the Kerekis' malpractice action, he attempted to insulate himself from a disciplinary proceeding. Disciplinary proceedings are not actions for malpractice. Respondent's actions may have violated DR 1-102(A)(2) (cir cumvent a Disciplinary Rule through actions of another), but respondent was not charged with such a violation.
Costs taxed to respondent.
Judgment accordingly.
Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.
Douglas, J., concurs in judgment only.
Moyer, C.J., and Cook, J., dissent.