Ohio State Bar Ass'n v. Ohralik

• Citation: 357 N.E.2d 1097,48 Ohio St.2d 217
• Decision Date: 15 December 1976
• Docket Number: No. 76-8,76-8
• Parties: , 2 O.O.3d 397 OHIO STATE BAR ASSOCIATION v. OHRALIK. D.D.
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Ohio

Page 217

48 Ohio St.2d 217

357 N.E.2d 1097, 2 O.O.3d 397

OHIO STATE BAR ASSOCIATION v. OHRALIK.

D.D. No. 76-8.

Supreme Court of Ohio.

Dec. 15, 1976.

Albert Ohralik, respondent, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in March 1948. He is 55 years old and resides in Montville, ohio. His law office is in Cleveland.

Relator, Ohio State Bar Association, filed a complaint with the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline against Albert Ohralik, alleging that he solicited the personal injury cases of Carol McClintock and Wanda Lou Holbert in violation of DR2-103(A) and DR2-104(A) of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Most of the material events involved in this complaint occurred on or about February 13, 1974. In the early morning of that day, while at the Montville, Ohio, Post Office, respondent learned from the postmaster's brother that Carol McClintock, of Montville, and Wanda Lou Holbert, of Chardon, had been involved in a serious automobile accident. Neither Carol McClintock nor Wanda Lou Holbert were relatives or former clients of respondent. Both were, if anything, casual acquaintances. Upon learing of the accident, which had occurred on February 2, 1974, respondent telephoned Carol's mother, obtained her consent to visit Carol at the hospital, and, later that day, proceeded to the hospital where Carol was undergoing treatment for the injuries sustained in the accident.

Carol McClintock testified that, until respondent visited her in the hospital on February 13th, she did not know that he was a lawyer. She admitted to a casual acquaintanceship with him, which began with her visits to the Montville Post Office to pick up the family mail, and which was limited to a customary exchange of greetings on such occasions. She also knew that her father had purchased an automobile from reapondent a number of years ago. Disputing this testimony, respondent insisted that Carol must have been aware that he was a practicing lawyer because, among other things, he had been a candiate for a political office and the fact was evident from his campaign literature.

After reviewing with Carol the legal merits of her cause and the need for proper representation, respondent obtained Carol's consent to handle the claim. Leaving the hospital, respondent drove to the home of Carol's parents, where he examined their automobile liability policy, discussed the law applicable to passenger guests and obtained the address and directions to the home of Wanda Lou Holbert, a passenger in the automobile driven by Carol McClintock.

Wanda Lou was then 18 years of age. Respondent, upon being admitted to her home, advised Wanda that he represented Carol McClintock, and that he had a 'tip' for her, namely: that she had a substantial legal claim for the injuries she had suffered while riding as a passenger in the automobile driven by her neighborhood friend, Carol. He further informed her he was prepared to supply her with the legal services necessary to capitalize on her claim. Respondent's representations induced Wanda to orally agree to engage him as her attorney in the matter.

The following day, February 14, 1974, respondent telephoned Wanda Lou for purposes of firming the client-attorney relationship begun the preceding day. The phone was answered by Wanda Lou's mother, who unceremoniously advised him that his services were not desired. Respondent retorted by pointing out that it was not she but Wanda Lou, a competent consenting adult, who was his client.

Respondent, in support of his claim that a binding agreement to engage his services had been made with Wanda Lou, introduced in evidence a tape recording of the February 13, 1974, conversation with Wanda Lou. The recording was made on respondent's recorder, hidden at the time of recording under respondent's coat, and made without the knowledge of Wanda Lou. Some of the recorded conversation indicates a consent by Wanda Lou to the utilization of respondent's professional services, but the conversation also demonstrates that this consent was...