[This opinion has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 

.]




                       CINCINNATI BAR ASSOCIATION v. HAAS.
               [Cite as Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Haas, 

.]
Attorneys at law—Misconduct—One-year suspension—Paying insurance company
        salesman for referring personal injury claimants.
    (No. 97-2640—Submitted May 26, 1998—Decided September 30, 1998.)
    ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and
                    Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 96-107.
                                  __________________
        {¶ 1} In 1990, respondent, Herbert Jaime Haas of Cincinnati, Ohio,
Attorney 

 entered into an arrangement with James Hearn,
an insurance company salesman who was not an attorney, whereby Hearn would
refer personal injury claimants to respondent in return for a portion of the fees at
the conclusion of the case. From 1990 through 1996, respondent represented
twenty to thirty of the persons referred to him by Hearn and paid Hearn $22,160.38.
In 1996, Hearn sued respondent for unpaid fees that he was entitled to receive and
obtained a judgment in the amount of $977.
        {¶ 2} On May 19, 1997, relator, Cincinnati Bar Association, filed an
amended complaint charging that the arrangement between respondent and Hearn
violated the Code of Professional Responsibility.             After respondent filed his
answer, the matter was submitted to a panel of the Board of Commissioners on
Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court (“board”) on stipulated facts, the
testimony of respondent expressing remorse, the testimony of a judge (appearing
pursuant to subpoena) concerning respondent’s ability and good character, and
letters with respect to respondent’s good character from five other attorneys, a court
administrator, the executive director of a legal aid society, a public defender, and
respondent’s rabbi.
                            SUPREME COURT OF OHIO




       {¶ 3} The panel found the facts as stipulated and concluded that
respondent’s conduct violated DR 3-102(A) (sharing fees with a non-lawyer), 2-
103(B) (compensating a person to recommend or secure employment of a client),
and 2-103(C) (requesting a person to recommend or promote the use of a lawyer’s
services). The panel recommended that respondent be suspended from the practice
of law for two years with one of those years suspended. The board adopted the
findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the panel.
                             __________________
       Robert J. Gehring and Maria C. Palermo, for relator.
       Mark A. Vander Laan, for respondent.
                             __________________
       Per Curiam.
       {¶ 4} We adopt the findings and conclusions of the board. In Warren Cty.
Bar Assn. v. Bunce (1998), 

, 

, we said that in
imposing a sanction, we will take into account the duty violated, the mental state
of the lawyer, the actual or potential injury caused by the misconduct, and the
existence of mitigating factors.    The duty violated here is to refrain from
compensating a third party to promote the use of a lawyer’s services. While many
persons refer counsel to others, when such a referral is the result of monetary
influence, it lacks the reliability of a disinterested recommendation. Cf.
Greenbaum, Lawyer’s Guide to the Ohio Code of Professional Responsibility
(1996), at 189.
       {¶ 5} On previous occasions we have imposed an indefinite suspension
when attorneys have paid non-lawyers for referrals. Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. White
(1997), 

, 

; Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Rinderknecht
(1997), 

, 

. Each of those cases, however, involved
additional violations of the Disciplinary Rules. Respondent’s conduct in this case
did not involve other disciplinary infractions and respondent, who has had an




                                        2
                                January Term, 1998




otherwise exemplary record, appeared remorseful.          Respondent is hereby
suspended from the practice of law in Ohio for one year. Costs taxed to respondent.
                                                           Judgment accordingly.
          MOYER, C.J., F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ.,
concur.
          DOUGLAS and RESNICK, JJ., dissent and would stay a one-year suspension.
                               __________________




                                         3