[This opinion has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 

.]




                  OHIO STATE BAR ASSOCIATION v. ZUCKERMAN.
          [Cite as Ohio State Bar Assn. v. Zuckerman, 

.]
Attorneys at law—Misconduct—One-year suspension—Compensating person for
        recommendation of employment—Requesting person to promote use of
        lawyer’s services—Dividing fees with lawyers not in the same firm without
        prior consent of client.
     (No. 97-2670—Submitted June 9, 1998—Decided September 16, 1998.)
    ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and
                     Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 97-39.
                                  __________________
        {¶ 1} Prior to 1994, respondent, Richard Zuckerman of Cleveland, Ohio,
Attorney 

 was co-counsel with David Linick, Senior
Corporate Counsel of the Glidden Company, in several personal injury cases
unrelated to Glidden matters. In one such case, respondent and Linick failed to file
a complaint within the statute of limitations and settled with their client for $5,000.
Respondent and Linick each contributed $2,500 to the settlement amount.
Thereafter, from the spring of 1994 through November 1995, Linick referred
several Glidden corporate matters to respondent, and respondent billed Glidden for
his work. Respondent’s bills were approved by Linick. After being paid by
Glidden for his legal work, respondent sent checks to Linick for exactly half the
amount of the payments he had received from Glidden. There was no overt
agreement between respondent and Linick with respect to the fifty percent
payments to Linick, but each understood that initially the payments were made to
recoup the funds paid out in the settlement. Glidden was not aware of respondent’s
payments.
                             SUPREME COURT OF OHIO




        {¶ 2} Ohio State Bar Association, relator, filed an amended complaint on
July 15, 1997, charging, inter alia, that respondent’s conduct violated DR 2-103(B)
(a lawyer shall not compensate a person to recommend or secure the lawyer’s
employment by a client or as a reward for having made a recommendation resulting
in the lawyer’s employment by a client), 2-103(C) (a lawyer shall not request a
person to promote the use of a lawyer’s services), and 2-107(A) (fees may be
divided by lawyers who are not in the same firm only with the prior consent of the
client after written disclosure, and the division is in proportion to the work done by
each attorney or all lawyers assume responsibility for the representation).
        {¶ 3} Respondent filed his answer, and the matter was heard by a panel of
the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court
(“board”). The panel found the facts as alleged and concluded that respondent
violated the Disciplinary Rules as charged.       The panel received evidence in
mitigation that respondent had practiced for twenty-six years without any prior
disciplinary problems, and that he cooperated in the investigation by the
Disciplinary Counsel.     The panel also received testimony from judges about
respondent’s ability and character, and testimony about his illness and dependence
on Prozac and about illness in his family. The panel recommended that respondent
be publicly reprimanded.      The board adopted the findings, conclusions, and
recommendation of the panel.
                               __________________
        William T. Monroe, Daniel J. Hughes, Eugene P. Whetzel and James
Flaherty, for relator.
        Mary L. Cibella, for respondent.
                               __________________




                                           2
                               January Term, 1998




       Per Curiam.
       {¶ 4} We adopt the findings and conclusions of the board, but believe a
more severe sanction is warranted.      The Disciplinary Rules are clear.      No
circumstance would have justified respondent’s payments to Linick whether they
were characterized as fees or as gifts. Respondent should have known that if Linick
was to receive any portion of the fees Glidden paid to respondent, Linick was
required by DR 2-107 to actually have done some work or at least have assumed
responsibility for the handling of the matters. Respondent should also have known
that DR 2-103(B) prohibited him from paying any reward to Linick for his
employment by Glidden.
       {¶ 5} Respondent is hereby suspended from the practice of law in Ohio for
one year. Costs taxed to respondent.
                                                           Judgment accordingly.
       MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur.
                              __________________




                                        3