Disciplinary Counsel v. Mason

[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Mason, 125 Ohio St.3d 29, 2010-Ohio-1467.]

DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. MASON.

[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Mason, 125 Ohio St.3d 29, 2010-Ohio-1467.]

Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Payments for recommending a lawyer’s

services — Consent-to-discipline agreement — Public reprimand.

(No. 2009-2245 — Submitted January 13, 2010 — Decided April 7, 2010.)

ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and

Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 09-037.

__________________

Per Curiam.

{¶ 1} Respondent, Ronald Lee Mason of Dublin, Ohio, Attorney

Registration No. 0030110, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1978.

On June 9, 2009, relator, Disciplinary Counsel, charged respondent with a single

violation of Prof.Cond.R. 7.2(b) (prohibiting a lawyer from giving anything of

value to a person for recommending the lawyer’s services). A panel of the Board

of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline considered the cause on the

parties’ consent-to-discipline agreement. See Section 11 of the Rules and

Regulations Governing Procedure on Complaints and Hearings Before the Board

of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline (“BCGD Proc.Reg.”).

Misconduct

{¶ 2} The stipulated facts of this case show that respondent is the

principal of Mason Law Firm Co., L.P.A. (“Mason Law”), a four-attorney firm

primarily representing management and employers in employment, Occupational

Safety and Health Administration (“OSHA”), labor, and construction matters. He

is also the owner of and general counsel for Midwest Management Consultants,

Inc. (“Midwest Management”), a wholly owned subsidiary and ancillary business

to Mason Law that provides OSHA- and employment-consulting services for

SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

employers. Mason Law and Midwest Management share an office in Dublin,

Ohio.

{¶ 3} Midwest Management employed William Wheeler, a nonlawyer

consultant who is recognized by the United States Department of Labor as a

“registered persuader” – a person who speaks directly with company employees

to promote union avoidance. Pursuant to Wheeler’s employment agreement, he

was to receive 40 percent of the fees Midwest Management billed and collected

for work he actually performed and 15 percent of the fees billed and collected

from any work he initiated, regardless of whether he performed the actual work.

{¶ 4} In 2007, Midwest Management billed and collected $82,906.25 for

the work Wheeler performed (473.75 hours x $175 per hour), and Wheeler was

entitled to receive $33,162.50 ($82,906.25 x .4). Midwest Management also

collected $64,924.50 for work Wheeler initiated in 2007. Therefore, Wheeler was

entitled to receive additional compensation of $9,739.12 ($64,924.50 x .15).

Thus, pursuant to his employment agreement, Wheeler was entitled to

compensation of $42,901.62 for 2007. However, during that year Midwest

Management actually paid Wheeler $112,484.

{¶ 5} The difference between the amount Wheeler was entitled to

receive pursuant to his employment agreement and the amount he actually

received – $69,582.57 – represents referral fees paid by Midwest Management for

eight clients Wheeler referred to Mason Law. Those clients paid $486,894.02 in

legal fees to Mason Law in 2007. Beginning in 2008, Midwest Management paid

Wheeler a straight salary and no longer compensated him for referring clients to

Mason Law.

{¶ 6} The parties stipulated that respondent’s conduct violated

Prof.Cond.R. 7.2(b).

Sanction

2

January Term, 2010

{¶ 7} In recommending a sanction, the panel considered the aggravating

and mitigating factors listed in BCGD Proc.Reg. 10. Consistent with the parties’

stipulation, the panel found the following mitigating factors: (1) respondent has

no prior disciplinary record, (2) respondent provided full and free disclosure

during relator’s investigation and has displayed a cooperative attitude toward the

disciplinary proceedings, (3) respondent has made a timely, good faith effort to

rectify the consequences of his misconduct, and (4) respondent is of good

character and reputation. See BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(a), (c), (d), and (e).

There is no evidence demonstrating any aggravating factors. See BCGD

Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1).

{¶ 8} Both the panel and the board accepted the parties’ consent-to-

discipline agreement, including the finding of misconduct and recommended

sanction. We agree that respondent violated Prof.Cond.R. 7.2(b) and that,

consistent with the parties’ agreement this conduct warrants a public reprimand.

We imposed a similar sanction in Lake Cty. Bar Assn. v. Patterson (1980), 64

Ohio St.2d 163, 18 O.O.3d 382, 413 N.E.2d 840, for a violation of DR 2-103(B)

(barring a lawyer from compensating or giving something of value to a person to

recommend or secure the lawyer’s employment, or as a reward for having made a

recommendation resulting in the lawyer’s employment).

{¶ 9} On the board’s recommendation, we accept the consent-to-

discipline agreement. Accordingly, respondent is hereby publicly reprimanded

for his violation of Prof.Cond.R. 7.2(b). Costs are taxed to respondent.

Judgment accordingly.

MOYER, C.J.,1 and PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’CONNOR,

O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, and CUPP, JJ., concur.

1. The late Chief Justice Thomas J. Moyer participated in the deliberations in, and the final

resolution of, this case prior to his death.

3

SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

__________________

Jonathan E. Coughlan, Disciplinary Counsel, for relator.

Kegler, Brown, Hill & Ritter Co., L.P.A., Rasheeda Z. Kahn, and

Geoffrey Stern, for respondent.

______________________

4