Ohio State Bar Ass'n v. Zuckerman

Ohio Supreme Court

Ohio State Bar Ass'n v. Zuckerman

699 N.E.2d 40, 83 Ohio St. 3d 148

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedSeptember 16, 1998

DocketNo. 97-2670

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 699 N.E.2d 40 (Ohio State Bar Ass'n v. Zuckerman) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ohio State Bar Ass'n v. Zuckerman, 699 N.E.2d 40, 83 Ohio St. 3d 148 (Ohio 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

We adopt the findings and conclusions of the board, but believe a more severe sanction is warranted. The Disciplinary Rules are clear. No circumstance would have justified respondent’s payments to Linick whether they were characterized as fees or as gifts. Respondent should have known that if Linick was to receive any portion of the fees Glidden paid to respondent, Linick was required by DR 2-107 to actually have done some work or at least have assumed responsibility for the handling of the matters. Respondent should also have known that DR 2-103(B) prohibited him from paying any reward to Linick for his employment by Glidden.

Respondent is hereby suspended from the practice of law in Ohio for one year. Costs taxed to respondent.

Judgment accordingly.

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam.

We adopt the findings and conclusions of the board, but believe a more severe sanction is warranted. The Disciplinary Rules are clear. No circumstance would have justified respondent’s payments to Linick whether they were characterized as fees or as gifts. Respondent should have known that if Linick was to receive any portion of the fees Glidden paid to respondent, Linick was required by DR 2-107 to actually have done some work or at least have assumed responsibility for the handling of the matters. Respondent should also have known that DR 2-103(B) prohibited him from paying any reward to Linick for his employment by Glidden.

Respondent is hereby suspended from the practice of law in Ohio for one year. Costs taxed to respondent.

Judgment accordingly.

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

699 N.E.2d 40, 83 Ohio St. 3d 148, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ohio-state-bar-assn-v-zuckerman-ohio-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack