Cleveland Bar Ass'n v. Fleck, No. 19
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Ohio |
| Writing for the Court | PER CURIAM; WEYGANDT |
| Citation | 172 Ohio St. 467,178 N.E.2d 782 |
| Parties | , 17 O.O.2d 458 CLEVELAND BAR ASSOCIATION v. FLECK et al. D. D. |
| Docket Number | No. 19 |
| Decision Date | 06 December 1961 |
Page 467
v.
FLECK et al.
Paul J. Gnau, Paul Mancino and Burt J. Fulton, Cleveland, for relator.
David I. Sindell, Cleveland, for respondents.
PER CURIAM.
Counsel are agreed that this matter is before the court de novo for consideration of the evidence and the recommendation of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline.
Fortunately many of the controlling facts are not in dispute.
The conclusions of the board read as follows:
'1. Aaron Fleck, Sidney Fleck and Charles Fleck are guilty of misconduct within the meaning of paragraph 5 of amended Rule XXVII of the Supreme Court of Ohio, in the following respects:
'a. In that they, as partners, wilfully entered into a written contract as heretofore set forth with Local 407 of the Teamsters Union, Cleveland, Ohio, on or about November 25th, 1957, which
Page 469
contract constituted an employment by a labor organization under which legal services would be rendered to the members thereof in respect to their individual affairs, and constituted a seeking out of those with claims for personal injuries in order to secure them as clients, contrary to Canons 27, 28, 29 and 35 of the Canons of Professional Ethics.[178 N.E.2d 784] 'b. In that they, as partners, by entering into said written contract with a labor union wilfully caused a system of referrals to be created in order to carry out the purposes of the contract, whereby said respondents obtained others, to wit: the officers and employees of said union, as touters, to solicit and obtain professional employment for them, by referring union members to said respondents for counsel and assistance in their individual affairs, to wit: personal injury claims under the workmen's compensation laws, contrary to Canons 27, 28, 29 and 35 of the Canons of Professional Ethics and Rule XXVIII, Section 3, of the Supreme Court of Ohio.
'c. In that they, as partners, by entering into the aforesaid contract with a labor union did breed litigation by seeking out persons having personal injury claims under the workmen's compensation laws as clients, contrary to Canon 28 of the Canons of Professional Ethics.
'2. Aaron Fleck is guilty of misconduct within the meaning of paragraph 5 of Rule XXVII of the Supreme Court of Ohio in that he solicited professional employment by personal communications to the members of said union local 407 in meeting assembled for the purpose of securing the execution of said employment contract by the union, whereby he would render the members legal services in their individual affairs, the same not being warranted by his personal relations with said members, contrary to Canon 27 of the Canons of Professional Ethics
'3. The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Abrams, Matter of, No. 75-1029
...were indefinitely suspended from the practice of law in Ohio on December 6, 1961. (Cleveland Bar Association v. Fleck et al., 172 Ohio St. 467, 178 N.E.2d 782.) On June 15, 1962 respondents were suspended forthwith from the practice of law in this Court, and pursuant to Rule 1(E) of the Rul......
-
In re Fleck, No. 19386.
...suspended indefinitely from the practice of law three Cleveland attorneys, a father and two sons. Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Fleck et al., 172 Ohio St. 467, 178 N.E.2d 782, cert. denied, 369 U.S. 861, 82 S.Ct. 948, 8 L.Ed.2d 19, rehearing denied, 370 U.S. 914, 82 S.Ct. 1254, 8 L.Ed.2d The Unite......
-
Unauthorized Practice of Law in Cuyahoga County, In re, No. 37942
...Compensation. See Dayton Bar Association v. Herzog (1962), 173 Ohio St. 313, 181 N.E.2d 880; Cleveland Bar Association v. Fleck (1961), 172 Ohio St. 467, 178 N.E.2d 782. Protecting members of the public from being induced to pay for such advice and services of nonlawyers is just as importan......
-
Mahoning County Bar Ass'n v. Ruffalo
...of the evidence.' To the same effect see the per curiam opinion in Cleveland Bar Association v. Fleck [199 N.E.2d 398] (1961), 172 Ohio St. 467, 469, 178 N.E.2d In cases of this kind, the board of commissioners acts for and on behalf of this court. In doing so, it makes recommendations as t......
-
Abrams, Matter of, No. 75-1029
...were indefinitely suspended from the practice of law in Ohio on December 6, 1961. (Cleveland Bar Association v. Fleck et al., 172 Ohio St. 467, 178 N.E.2d 782.) On June 15, 1962 respondents were suspended forthwith from the practice of law in this Court, and pursuant to Rule 1(E) of the Rul......
-
In re Fleck, No. 19386.
...suspended indefinitely from the practice of law three Cleveland attorneys, a father and two sons. Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Fleck et al., 172 Ohio St. 467, 178 N.E.2d 782, cert. denied, 369 U.S. 861, 82 S.Ct. 948, 8 L.Ed.2d 19, rehearing denied, 370 U.S. 914, 82 S.Ct. 1254, 8 L.Ed.2d The Unite......
-
Unauthorized Practice of Law in Cuyahoga County, In re, No. 37942
...Compensation. See Dayton Bar Association v. Herzog (1962), 173 Ohio St. 313, 181 N.E.2d 880; Cleveland Bar Association v. Fleck (1961), 172 Ohio St. 467, 178 N.E.2d 782. Protecting members of the public from being induced to pay for such advice and services of nonlawyers is just as importan......
-
Mahoning County Bar Ass'n v. Ruffalo
...of the evidence.' To the same effect see the per curiam opinion in Cleveland Bar Association v. Fleck [199 N.E.2d 398] (1961), 172 Ohio St. 467, 469, 178 N.E.2d In cases of this kind, the board of commissioners acts for and on behalf of this court. In doing so, it makes recommendations as t......