Opinion

Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Linick

  • 84 Ohio St. 3d 489
  • 705 N.E.2d 667
Court
Ohio Supreme Court
Filed
Feb 10, 1999
Status
Published
Author
Stratton
On the bench
Cook, Douglas, Moyer, Pfeifer, Resnick, Stratton, Sweeney
Cited by
4 cases
Authority
More cited than 15.2%

The opinion

Lundberg Stratton, J.,

dissenting. I respectfully dissent from the sanction imposed by the majority. In the case of Ohio State Bar Assn. v. Zuckerman (1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 148 , 699 N.E.2d 40 , the court imposed a one-year suspension. In the Zuckerman case, no one disputes that Zuckerman did competent *491 work and received a reasonable fee for his services. He then kicked back fifty percent of the fee to Linick.

Linick performed no services for the percentage of kickback he received. He had a similar scheme going with Attorney Kanter. Linick returned none of this money to his employer, Glidden. He was the mastermind and the beneficiary of the scheme. His discipline should therefore be greater than Zuckerman’s.

Therefore, I would suspend Linick for two years, with six months stayed.

Resnick, J., concurs in the foregoing dissenting opinion.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.