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

Podor, Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn. v.
121 Ohio St.3d 131, 2009-Ohio-358. Decided 2/5/2009.
Case Summaries- 253
Respondent provided financial assistance to a client for living expenses while the client‘s case was
pending. Relator charged respondent with four counts of professional misconduct in its amended
complaint, two of which were dismissed leaving counts one and three to be heard before the panel. The
panel found insufficient evidence to support the Count Three allegation that respondent had collected an
illegal or clearly excessive fee. The board recommended dismissal of count three. The Supreme Court
agreed and so ordered. As to Count One, respondent is the sole owner of his law practice Podor and
Associates and also owns IMMI, which produces advertisement for legal services, primarily for
television, and sells diet and exercise advice, primarily on the internet. Respondent represented his
long-time client and friends, Carla and Charles White, in their personal-injury litigation. While their
case was pending, Mrs. White asked respondent to advance her money for living expenses, to which
respondent gave the Whites $19,800 through IMMI. Mrs. White also made a brief appearance in one of
IMMI‘s commercials. During the disciplinary investigation, respondent suggested that the advance
was actually payment for her commercial appearance. The loan has since been repaid using the
proceeds of the settlement of the lawsuit. The parties stipulated and the board adopted the panel‘s
findings that this loan violated DR 5-103(B). The Supreme Court agreed. In mitigation, the board found
respondent did not act out of a dishonest or selfish motive. In aggravation, the board found respondent
had a prior disciplinary violation resulting in a stayed suspension in Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Podor
(1995), 72 Ohio St.3d 40, 647 N.E.2d 470, and he engaged in a deceptive practice during the disciplinary
process. The board adopted the panel‘s recommendation of a one-year suspension, stayed on conditions.
Relator objected to the board recommendation and advocated for a more severe sanction. The Supreme
Court agreed with the board and ordered a one-year suspension stayed on conditions that respondent
complete six hours of continuing legal education in ethics and law office management beyond the hours
required for all Ohio attorneys and that respondent commit no further misconduct. Two justices
dissenting in favor of an actual suspension because of the aggravating factors of respondent‘s deceptive
practice by giving guarded testimony regarding his motivation for providing money to the client and his
prior discipline.
Rules Violated: DR 5-103(B)
Aggravation: (a), (f)
Mitigation: (b)
Prior Discipline: YES Procedure/ Process Issues: NO Criminal Conduct: NO
Public Official: NO Sanction: One-year suspension, stayed