From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Bar Assn. v. Haffner

Supreme Court of Ohio
Nov 2, 1977
368 N.E.2d 845 (Ohio 1977)

Opinion

D.D. No. 77-7

Decided November 2, 1977.

Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Public reprimand — Acts warranting.

ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline.

Respondent, Walter S. Haffner, has been a member of the Ohio Bar since 1948 and practices law in Cleveland.

In a complaint filed with the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline, the Bar Association of Greater Cleveland, relator, alleges that respondent filed a complaint in the Municipal Court of Cleveland to recover for medical expenses incurred on behalf of Della Goins, his former client in a personal injury claim; and that Haffner alleged he had paid for the medical expenses, but that he had not. Relator further claims that respondent obtained a default judgment and caused Goins' wages to be garnisheed; that later respondent did pay the bills; and that the allegation that he had paid the bills, when he had not, was misconduct requiring disciplinary action.

Respondent filed an answer denying the allegations in the complaint and claiming that certain sections of the Disciplinary Rules under which he was being charged were vague and/or overbroad and violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. Respondent's defense before the hearing panel of the board was directed toward the fact that no one had been defrauded and the violation of the rules, if any, was merely a technical one since respondent later did pay the medical expenses.

Respondent freely admitted that he made the allegation in his complaint that he had paid the medical expenses, and that it was not true, but said it was not made under oath, nor was there an intent to deceive or defraud anyone.

The board concluded that the respondent had been guilty of violating DR 1-102(A) (4) and (5), which state, respectively, that a lawyer shall not "[e]ngage in conduct invoving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation" and that a lawyer shall not "[e]ngage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice," and thus recommended that respondent be given a public reprimand.

Mr. Benjamin B. Sheerer, for relator.

Mr. Charles Abookire, Jr., Mr. J. Donald Cairns and Mr. Thomas J. Nevits, for respondent.


Upon examination of the record of the hearing, the finding of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline, and the briefs of relator and respondent, we conclude there are ample facts to justify the board's finding that respondent violated the Code of Professional Responsibility, specifically DR 1-102(A) (4) and (5).

We confirm the recommendation of the board, that respondent, Walter S. Haffner, be publicly reprimanded. It is so ordered.

Judgment accordingly.

O'NEILL, C.J., HERBERT, CELEBREZZE, W. BROWN, P. BROWN, SWEENEY and LOCHER, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Bar Assn. v. Haffner

Supreme Court of Ohio
Nov 2, 1977
368 N.E.2d 845 (Ohio 1977)
Case details for

Bar Assn. v. Haffner

Case Details

Full title:BAR ASSOCIATION OF GREATER CLEVELAND v. HAFFNER

Court:Supreme Court of Ohio

Date published: Nov 2, 1977

Citations

368 N.E.2d 845 (Ohio 1977)
368 N.E.2d 845

Citing Cases

Smith v. Friedland

In order for this court to issue a writ of mandamus, Smith-Hakeem must demonstrate that: (1) he possesses a…

Lake Cty. Bar Assn. v. Speros

This is the misconduct with which we are faced here, and it exists in none of the cases respondent cites to…