Summary
In Bar Ass'n v. Sandler, 51 Ohio St.2d 132, 5 O.O.3d 109, 364 N.E.2d 1168 (1977), an attorney offered to help with the return of a stolen vehicle for a finder's fee.
Summary of this case from State v. BoltonOpinion
D.D. No. 77-4
Decided July 20, 1977.
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Public reprimand — Acts warranting.
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline.
Alan G. Sandler (respondent) was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1959. Respondent is engaged in the private practice of law as a sole practitioner.
On April 15, 1976, the Bar Association of Greater Cleveland (relator) filed a complaint against respondent with the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline (board), alleging therein that respondent had violated DR 1-102(A)(4), (5) and (6) and DR 7-102(A)(7) and (8) of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The complaint centered upon the activities of respondent in representing a client in obtaining a "finder's fee" from the insurer of a Ford truck stolen from a Ford truck sales agency.
In July 1974, respondent was approached by a client, a previous acquaintance, as to the possibility of obtaining a "finder's fee" in exchange for disclosing the whereabouts of a stolen truck. The client represented that he did not steal or have possession of said vehicle. After making several inquiries about a "finder's fee," respondent agreed to convey his client's offer to the rightful owner and insurer of the truck. During the course of pursuing negotiations, respondent learned that part of the finder's fee was to be received by the persons who had stolen the truck. Respondent claimed that, when he learned this fact, he told his client to "wash your hands of the whole thing." However, respondent continued to participate in this matter. Furthermore, although respondent eventually decided not to charge a fee for his service, there was testimony that, even after learning that part of the fee would go to the thieves, respondent stated his fee would come from his client's share of the "finder's fee."
Thereafter, as shown by the stipulations of the parties, respondent was indicted and charged with extortion, grand theft, and obstruction of justice. Respondent was acquitted of the charge of grand theft by the trial judge. Respondent was acquitted of the other two charges by the jury. A further charge of receiving stolen property was dismissed on the grounds of double jeopardy.
A hearing on the complaint was held on August 23, 1976, before the duly appointed hearing panel of the board. Concluding that respondent violated the Code of Professional Responsibility, the board recommended his indefinite suspension from the practice of law.
The matter is now before this court for consideration of the board's report and respondent's objections to the report.
Mr. John E. Martindale, Mr. Jed Weisman and Mr. Michael T. McMenamin, for relator.
Gold, Rotatori, Messerman Schwartz Co., L.P.A., and Mr. Gerald A. Messerman, for respondent.
The board found the presented evidence conclusively demonstrated that respondent knowingly took part, for a fee, in a scheme to defraud by an attempt to sell back to the true owner or insurer a truck known by him to be stolen property.
DR 1-102(A) admonishes, inter alia:
"A lawyer shall not:
"* * *
"(4) Engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation.
"(5) Engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice.
"(6) Engage in any other conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law."
DR 7-102(A) cautions, inter alia:
"In his representation of a client, a lawyer shall not:
"* * *
"(7) Counsel or assist his client in conduct that the lawyer knows to be illegal or fraudulent.
"(8) Knowingly engage in other illegal conduct or conduct contrary to a Disciplinary Rule."
This court, upon examination of the evidence, agrees with the commission's finding that respondent's improper involvement was violative of the Code of Professional Responsibility. We disagree with the board's recommendation as to the appropriate disciplinary action.
The judgment of this court is that respondent be given a public reprimand for his violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Judgment accordingly.
W. BROWN, P. BROWN, SWEENEY and LOCHER, JJ., concur.