Opinion
No. 89-2171
Submitted February 13, 1990 —
Decided May 9, 1990.
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Public reprimand — Acquiring a proprietary interest in a matter undertaken for a client, accepting compensation from one other than a client and engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice.
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 88-41.
In a complaint filed on August 11, 1988, relator, Office of Disciplinary Counsel, charged that respondent, Jeffrey G. Williams, had violated, inter alia, DR 5-103(A) (acquiring a proprietary interest in a matter undertaken for a client), 5-107(A)(1) (accepting compensation from one other than a client), and 1-102(A)(5) (engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice). Respondent stipulated to these violations, and both parties waived a hearing before a panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court.
The events underlying the complaint were also stipulated. With respect to the DR 5-103(A) violation, the record substantiates that respondent acquired a proprietary interest in numerous claims filed for debts due his clients. For example, in July and November 1987, two of respondent's clients, Blanchard Valley Pediatrics and Findlay Radiology Associates, executed assignments tranferring to respondent certain claims for debts owed to them. In December 1987, respondent filed an action in the Findlay Municipal Court, both as plaintiff and assignee, to collect these debts.
With respect to the DR 5-107(A)(1) violation, the record shows that, in 1987, respondent agreed to provide General Audit Corporation ("GAC"), a collection agency, legal assistance in its debt collection efforts. In return, GAC agreed to provide an office to respondent at its place of business, and to pay him $700 per month, regardless of the amounts he collected through legal action. However, although accepting compensation from GAC under this arrangement, respondent failed to disclose to referred clients that GAC was paying for his representation.
With respect to the DR 1-102(A)(5) violation, the record substantiates that, in 1988, respondent represented Molly Maxson, the plaintiff in a child custody dispute. After some negotiation, opposing counsel in the case forwarded for respondent's approval an entry that gave defendant the right to claim the child for tax purposes. Thereafter, respondent unilaterally altered the entry by substituting the word "plaintiff" for "defendant." He then submitted the altered entry to the court, where it was signed by the judge and filed. Respondent was later found in contempt for causing the court to accept this altered entry and a subsequent "corrective entry" as filings to which the parties had agreed. He was sentenced to three days in a correctional facility and fined $500, but his sentence and $400 of the fine were ultimately suspended. Respondent immediately paid the fine, the defendant's attorney fees, and apologized to the court.
Based on the foregoing, the panel found that respondent had violated DR 5-103(A), 5-107(A)(1), and 1-102(A)(5). Before making its recommendation, the panel considered that respondent had cooperated in relator's investigation; that he had taken prompt action to ameliorate the misconduct resulting in the first two of these violations; and that, while he had committed a serious error in judgment in connection with the Maxson matter, he had already been appropriately sanctioned by the court involved. The panel then decided to recommend the sanction suggested by both parties, a public reprimand. The board adopted the panel's findings and its recommendation.
J. Warren Bettis, disciplinary counsel, and Mark H. Aultman, for relator.
Charles W. Kettlewell, for respondent.
Having thoroughly reviewed the record, we agree with the board's findings of misconduct and its recommendation. Accordingly, respondent is hereby publicly reprimanded for having violated DR 5-103(A), 5-107(A)(1), and 1-102(A)(5). Costs taxed to respondent.
Judgment accordingly.
MOYER, C.J., SWEENEY, HOLMES, DOUGLAS, WRIGHT, H. BROWN and RESNICK, JJ., concur.