372 N.E.2d 344
D.D. No. 77-5Supreme Court of Ohio.
Decided February 1, 1978.
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Indefinite suspension — — Acts warranting.
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline.
A complaint was filed by the Bar Association of Greater Cleveland against the respondent, Samuel Protus, who was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1934.
After an answer was filed by the respondent, a panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline held a hearing at which evidence and exhibits were submitted. Post-hearing briefs were subsequently filed.
The complaint charged:
“2. On information and belief, Feola’s Fire Service Company and paragon Fire Service Company (collectively referred to as `Feola’) are companies located at 7407 Cedar Avenue, Cleveland, Ohio, and purporting to be in the business of estimating and adjusting fire loss claims and of effecting temporary and permanent repairs to properties damaged by fire.
Page 44
“3. Respondent Protus individually and as a member of the firm of Protus Fromet, has had at least since January 1, 1974, a relationship and arrangement with Feola and has been aware of Feola’s business practices.
“4. On information and belief Feola solicits business contracts for itself by appearing at the scene while the fire is in progress, or shortly thereafter, and attempting by various means to persuade the owner of the fire-damaged property of the need for Feola’s services.
“5. In connection with its efforts to secure business for itself Feola also undertook to solicit business for the firm of Protus Fromet. In a number of instances, with the knowledge and approval of Protus Fromet, Feola secured the execution of a form contract by the terms of which the owner of the property damaged by fire employed Protus Fromet to negotiate a settlement with the owner’s insurance company with respect the owner’s claim for loss of or damage to personal property, and by the terms of which the firm of Protus Fromet was to receive a fee equal to a designated percentage of the recovery.
“6. Following the purported employment of the firm of Protus
Fromet by the owner, arrangements were made for the preparation and submission of an itemized proof of loss to the owner’s insurance company. The itemization was submitted on the letterhead of Protus Fromet, and it was represented to the owner that the person who prepared the itemization was an employee of Protus Fromet, whereas in fact said person was an employee of Feola.
“7. Upon the conclusion of the settlement of the owner’s personal property claim, Protus Fromet arranged to collect the fee provided for in the employment contract solicited by Feola, and thereafter Protus Fromet paid to Feola all or part of said fee.
“8. In none of the instances referred to herein did the owner have any knowledge of respondent Protus or the firm of Protus
Fromet prior to the execution of the employment agreement solicited by Feola, nor did any owner know that the itemized proof of loss was prepared
Page 45
and submitted to the owner’s insurance company by an employee of Feola rather than Protus Fromet, or know that all or part of the fee paid to Protus Fromet for its purported legal services was ultimately paid to Feola.
“9. Respondent Protus knowingly participated in the above-described course of conduct on a regular and recurring basis from at least January 1, 1974, and, as a consequence thereof, was guilty of violating the Code of Professional Responsibility adopted by the Supreme Court of Ohio in the following respects:
“(a) In requesting and permitting another person or organization to recommend or promote the use of the services of his firm and himself (DR2-103[C]).
“(b) In compensating a person or organization to recommend or secure the employment of his firm and himself by a client (DR2-103[B]).
“(c) In accepting employment solicited by another person or organization when he knew or it was obvious that persons seeking the services of his firm and himself did so as a result of conduct prohibited under DR2-103 (DR2-103[E]).
“(d) In sharing legal fees with a non-lawyer (DR3-102).
“(e) In failing to assist in maintaining the integrity and competence of the legal profession by his misconduct in
“(i) circumventing or attempting to circumvent a Disciplinary Rule through actions of another (DR1-102[A][2]);
“(ii) engaging in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice (DR1-102[A][5]); and
“(iii) engaging in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice.”
The board, in its summary report to this court, stated that it agreed with the following statements which appeared in relator’s brief:
“He (respondent) actively participated in the planning and execution of a scheme whereby innocent victims of fire losses were led to believe that they were receiving
Page 46
legal representation for a fee from Attorney Protus where, in fact, their contents losses were being handled by laymen who were taking the fee and kicking back a monthly salary to the lawyer”; ” * * * the clients did not receive any service from Protus because he permitted himself to become a mere front for Feola so that Feola could engage in contents adjustment work in violation of the law of Ohio”; and ” * * * The contracts solicited by Feola’s representatives designated Protus and Fromet as attorneys for the claimants. But in point of fact Protus was Feola’s attorney, and the record demonstrates that his loyalty to Feola displaced the loyalty which was legally due to the claimants.”
The board concluded:
“The charge of violating DR2-103(B) has not been sustained.
“The charges of violating DR1-102(A)(2) and (A)(5), DR2-103(C) and (E), and DR3-102 have been sustained. (DR2-103[E] was repealed effective October 20, 1975 after the events of the within complaint had occurred.)”
The board recommended to this court that the respondent be indefinitely suspended from the practice of law.
Mr. David I. Sindell, Mr. Clarence L. Mollison and Mr. Thomas P. Mulligan, for relator.
Mr. Edwin Woodle, for respondent.
Per Curiam.
After a careful examination and review of the record in this case, this court concurs with the findings and recommendation of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline.
The respondent, Samuel Protus, is indefinitely suspended from the practice of law.
Judgment accordingly.
O’NEILL, C.J., HERBERT, CELEBREZZE, W. BROWN, P. BROWN, SWEENEY and LOCHER, JJ., concur.
Page 47