Opinion
D.D. No. 50
Decided January 29, 1964.
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Soliciting clients — Disciplinary action — Indefinite suspension from practice — Acts warranting.
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline.
On May 13, 1963, the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline filed in this court its findings of fact, conclusion and recommendation, pursuant to a complaint of the Columbus Bar Association and a hearing duly had thereon.
The board found:
Respondent was admitted to the practice of law in 1954. He was immediately inducted into the armed services and did not return to Columbus until 1957, at which time he was employed by the Industrial Commission. He resigned on August 15, 1959, and entered general practice.
Three laymen solicited claimants on behalf of respondent. One was paid $13,349.69 by way of salary and expenses during the year 1961.
Respondent admitted that in several instances he had destroyed his files because he had found affidavits in the Industrial Commission file to the effect that he had solicited the case.
The board concluded that respondent used his investigators to solicit professional employment, and that he thereby violated Canons 27 and 28 of the Canons of Professional Ethics adopted by the Supreme Court of Ohio.
The board recommended that the respondent be suspended for an indefinite period from the practice of law.
Mr. Harry Lewis, Mr. Richard L. Loveland and Mr. James C. Justice, for relator.
Mr. George E. Tyack, for respondent.
We overrule the objections of the respondent and approve the recommendation of the board that the respondent be suspended indefinitely from the practice of law in this state, on the basis of Columbus Bar Assn. v. Agee (1964), 175 Ohio St. 443.
Report confirmed and judgment accordingly.
TAFT, C.J., ZIMMERMAN, MATTHIAS, O'NEILL, GRIFFITH and GIBSON, JJ., concur.
HERBERT, J., concurs except as to the penalty, which should be a public reprimand.