Cincinnati Bar Ass'n v. Spitz

[This opinion has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 

89 Ohio St.3d 117

.]




                       CINCINNATI BAR ASSOCIATION v. SPITZ.
               [Cite as Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Spitz, 

2000-Ohio-122

.]
Attorneys at law—Misconduct—Indefinite suspension—Sharing a legal fee with a
          nonlawyer—Engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or
          misrepresentation—Failure to cooperate in a disciplinary investigation.
      (No. 99-1898—Submitted February 9, 2000—Decided May 31, 2000.)
    ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and
                     Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 97-56.
                                  __________________
          {¶ 1} In early 1991, respondent, Gregory G. Spitz of Cincinnati, Ohio,
Attorney 

Registration No. 0000794,

 prepared a deed and a trust for George Szucs
under an arrangement that respondent had with Marilyn T. Matho. Matho, a
nonattorney, received $1,195 from Szucs, and Matho dispersed $597.50, exactly
one-half of the amount received from Szucs, to respondent.
          {¶ 2} While investigating an unrelated matter in 1996, relator, the
Cincinnati Bar Association, learned about this transaction. Relator then asked
respondent for the details of this transaction. Respondent denied, in a letter dated
October 30, 1996, having a fee-sharing arrangement with Matho. Respondent did
state that Matho had engaged him to research some questions regarding Ohio trust
law, for which she paid him “five or six hundred dollars to the best of my
recollection.” In this letter, respondent claimed that he directed Matho to refer any
clients for deeds directly to him. He admitted preparing a deed for Szucs, for which
he received $50, but he denied sharing this money with Matho. He further denied
preparing any “trust for this mystery person nor did I receive $600.00 for doing any
trust.”
                             SUPREME COURT OF OHIO




       {¶ 3} Relator, in a letter dated January 6, 1997, noted conflicting accounts
regarding the trust transaction and asked respondent to submit “copies of any
invoices showing any bills which you may have rendered to Ms. Matho or her
business partner for legal representation.” Respondent, on February 5, 1997, sent
relator an invoice he claimed was a copy of the one he sent to Matho on December
20, 1990. The invoice was on letterhead listing respondent’s former office address
where respondent had conducted his practice in 1990. The invoice indicated a
billing to Matho for:
       “Legal consultation and research on Ohio Trust Law
                                                          $590.00
                                  Copying fee            7.50
                                  TOTAL DUE          $597.50”
       {¶ 4} In fact, respondent had retrieved old stationary and prepared a phony
invoice. Later, at a deposition taken by relator, respondent still maintained that he
had billed Matho for researching Ohio trust law and denied preparing a trust for
Szucs or sharing legal fees with Matho.
       {¶ 5} On June 16, 1997, relator filed a complaint charging respondent, in
two counts, with violating DR 3-102 (sharing a legal fee with a nonlawyer) and 1-
102(A)(4) (engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or
misrepresentation). Relator also charged respondent with a violation of Gov.Bar
R. V(4)(G) (failure to cooperate in a disciplinary investigation).
       {¶ 6} At a hearing before a panel of the Board of Commissioners on
Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court (“board”), respondent admitted
that the claims he had made in his October 30, 1996 letter were not true. He also
admitted that he had fabricated the invoice to appear like a 1990 invoice. He further
admitted that he had lied under oath about his arrangement with Matho and the
fabricated invoice at his deposition. He explained that he panicked when relator
confronted him and reacted in the way he did.




                                          2
                               January Term, 2000




       {¶ 7} The panel found that respondent had violated DR 3-102 and 1-
102(A)(4). The panel concluded that while the fee-splitting arrangement did not
“by itself warrant a harsh sanction, [respondent’s] conduct and actions in
attempting to cover-up the fee splitting were particularly egregious.” The panel
also concluded that respondent was not truthful in his testimony at the hearing. The
panel, in addition, observed that respondent had received a six-month suspension
in 1991 for engaging in other dishonest, fraudulent, and deceitful conduct and
misrepresentation. Consequently, the panel recommended that we indefinitely
suspend respondent from the practice of law.
       {¶ 8} The board adopted the findings of fact and conclusions of law of the
panel, and likewise recommended that we indefinitely suspend respondent from the
practice of law in Ohio.
                              __________________
       Deborah DeLong and Naomi C. Dallob, for relator.
       H. Fred Hoefle, for respondent.
                              __________________
       Per Curiam.
       {¶ 9} In Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Spitz (1991), 

62 Ohio St.3d 178, 179

, 

580 N.E.2d 1071, 1072

, we disciplined respondent for lying to his clients about filing a
suit on their behalf and preparing a “sham” brief to convince them of his continued
efforts in the case. He then told his clients that the judge “had thrown their case
out,” rendering further action futile. For these deceitful actions, we suspended
respondent from the practice of law for six months.
       {¶ 10} Respondent did not learn from his previous suspension. When
confronted with an investigation for his improper conduct in this case, respondent
responded with lies and another sham document. We must reply with a more
serious penalty than in respondent’s previous case. Accordingly, we adopt the




                                         3
                           SUPREME COURT OF OHIO




findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the board. We hereby indefinitely
suspend respondent from the practice of law. Costs taxed to respondent.
                                                          Judgment accordingly.
       MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur.
                             __________________




                                       4