disciplinary handbook: volume v - Supreme Court - State of Ohio

Jackel, Ohio State Bar Assn. v.
118 Ohio St.3d 186, 2008-Ohio-1981. Decided 5/1/2008.
Case Summaries- 137
A consent-to-discipline agreement was entered by the parties, accepted by the panel, and adopted by the
board. Respondent accepted clients from United Financial Systems Corporation, a company that uses
direct mailings to market estate-planning services in Ohio and other states. United Financial hired nonlawyers
to meet with prospective clients, obtain personal financial information necessary for estate
planning, discuss various options for estate planning, and then forward the information to attorneys to
actually draw up the estate plan. Clients would pay United Financial directly, who would then pay
respondent per case. While licensed in Indiana, respondent worked with United Financial from March
1999 until sometime in 2000. She moved to Ohio in late 2002, and resumed her relationship with United
Financial and from 2002 to 2004 performed estate- planning services for Indiana residents both directly
and through United Financial. She passed the Ohio bar in 2004 and began accepting referrals from
United Financial of client who lived in Ohio. She moved to Michigan in April 2005 and continued to
perform services for Ohio and Indiana resident through United Financial. She ended her affiliation with
United Financial sometime in March 2006. In December 2004, while residing in Ohio, she received
information from United Financial for a woman (Momot) and she spoke with her by phone. She prepared
the estate-planning documents and forwarded the documents to United Financial. She never met with
Momot. A United Financial representative took the documents to Momot for her signature. United
Financial charged Momot $2,495 and paid respondent $175 for preparing the documents. Pursuant to the
consent to discipline agreement respondent‘s acts constituted violations of DR 2-103(C) (prohibiting a
lawyer from requesting an organization to recommend or promote the use of the lawyer‘s services), 3-
101(A) (prohibiting a lawyer from aiding a non-lawyer in the unauthorized practice of law), 3-101(B)
(prohibiting a lawyer from practicing law in a jurisdiction where to do so would be in violation of
regulations of the profession in that jurisdiction), 3-102(A) (prohibiting a lawyer from sharing legal fees
with a non-lawyer), and 4-101(B)(1) (prohibiting a lawyer from knowingly revealing a client‘s
confidences or secrets). The parties stipulated in the agreement to mitigating factors including respondent
had no prior disciplinary record, no evidence of a dishonest or selfish motive, termination of her
relationship with United Financial upon discovery of the violations, and full cooperation with these
proceedings. BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(a), (b), (d). Pursuant to the consent to discipline agreement
the parties agreed and the panel and board accepted a two-year suspension from the practice of law in
Ohio. The Supreme Court also accepted this agreement and therefore suspended respondent for two
years.
Rules Violated: DR 2-103(C), 3-101(A), 3-101(B), 3-102(A), 4-101(B)(1)
Aggravation: NONE
Mitigation: (a), (b), (d)
Prior Discipline: NO Procedure/ Process Issues: NO Criminal Conduct: NO
Public Official: NO Sanction: Two-year suspension