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- 137A consent-to-discipline agreement was entered by the parties, accepted by the panel, and adopted by theboard. Respondent accepted clients from United Financial Systems Corporation, a company that usesdirect mailings to market estate-planning services in Ohio and other states. United Financial hired nonlawyersto meet with prospective clients, obtain personal financial information necessary for estateplanning, discuss various options for estate planning, and then forward the information to attorneys toactually draw up the estate plan. Clients would pay United Financial directly, who would then payrespondent per case. While licensed in Indiana, respondent worked with United Financial from March1999 until sometime in 2000. She moved to Ohio in late 2002, and resumed her relationship with UnitedFinancial and from 2002 to 2004 performed estate- planning services for Indiana residents both directlyand through United Financial. She passed the Ohio bar in 2004 and began accepting referrals fromUnited Financial of client who lived in Ohio. She moved to Michigan in April 2005 and continued toperform services for Ohio and Indiana resident through United Financial. She ended her affiliation withUnited Financial sometime in March 2006. In December 2004, while residing in Ohio, she receivedinformation from United Financial for a woman (Momot) and she spoke with her by phone. She preparedthe estate-planning documents and forwarded the documents to United Financial. She never met withMomot. A United Financial representative took the documents to Momot for her signature. UnitedFinancial charged Momot $2,495 and paid respondent $175 for preparing the documents. Pursuant to theconsent to discipline agreement respondent‘s acts constituted violations of DR 2-103(C) (prohibiting alawyer 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 ofregulations of the profession in that jurisdiction), 3-102(A) (prohibiting a lawyer from sharing legal feeswith a non-lawyer), and 4-101(B)(1) (prohibiting a lawyer from knowingly revealing a client‘sconfidences or secrets). The parties stipulated in the agreement to mitigating factors including respondenthad no prior disciplinary record, no evidence of a dishonest or selfish motive, termination of herrelationship with United Financial upon discovery of the violations, and full cooperation with theseproceedings. BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(a), (b), (d). Pursuant to the consent to discipline agreementthe parties agreed and the panel and board accepted a two-year suspension from the practice of law inOhio. The Supreme Court also accepted this agreement and therefore suspended respondent for twoyears.Rules Violated: DR 2-103(C), 3-101(A), 3-101(B), 3-102(A), 4-101(B)(1)Aggravation: NONEMitigation: (a), (b), (d)Prior Discipline: NO Procedure/ Process Issues: NO Criminal Conduct: NOPublic Official: NO Sanction: Two-year suspension