199 N.E.2d 589
D.D. No. 59Supreme Court of Ohio.
Decided June 3, 1964.
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Disciplinary action — Evidence insufficient to warrant.
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline.
The relator, the Butler County Bar Association, filed a complaint against the respondent, Harry Ogden Finkelman, charging him with misconduct as an attorney at law in that he directly contacted the city of Franklin and offered his services as attorney without pay, knowing that the city had an attorney; that he secured newspaper publicity and indirect advertising by sending letters to newspapers to gain for his clients publicity to
Page 310
be used in a possible future referendum and possible future court actions; and that he allowed ill feelings between himself and opposing counsel to influence his conduct so as to offer directly to the city council of Franklin his services as attorney without pay and to publicize such offer.
The Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline found that, during the time involved, respondent was representing clients in matters before the zoning commission of the city of Franklin, opposing applications for variances or changes in zoning; that respondent initiated referendum proceedings as to an ordinance granting variances and appealed to the court under the Administrative Procedure Act; and that, while the appeals were pending and referendum petitions were being circulated, respondent wrote a letter to members of city council, criticizing the zoning ordinances of the city, making suggestions regarding the setting up of a proper zoning procedure and stating, “I shall certainly be pleased to offer my services, gratis, to help create proper zoning machinery so sorely needed in your fine community.” A copy of the letter was sent to the editor of the local newspaper.
The matter is now before this court for consideration of the report of the board and the objections of the respondent.
Mr. George Elliott, Mr. Jackson Bosch and Mr. John B. Connaughton, for relator.
Messrs. Fitton, Pierce Baden, for respondent.
Per Curiam.
From a careful consideration of the report of the board, the respondent’s objections thereto, and the testimony and exhibits, this court is of the opinion that the evidence is insufficient to justify disciplinary action.
The objections to the report are sustained, and judgment is rendered dismissing the proceedings against the respondent.
Judgment accordingly.
TAFT, C.J., ZIMMERMAN, MATTHIAS, O’NEILL, GRIFFITH, HERBERT and GIBSON, JJ., concur.
Page 311