## Facts

- Justin Martus Smith, an Ohio lawyer admitted in 2000, represented Louis and Florence Reiger, New York residents injured in an Ohio automobile accident.
- Smith presented a contingency-fee agreement providing 33 1/3% if settled pre-suit, 40% if suit was filed, and 45% after trial or appeal.
- Because the tortfeasor’s liability coverage was insufficient, Smith pursued the clients’ New York no-fault personal-injury protection (PIP) benefits in addition to litigation.
- Smith was generally aware New York PIP was a no-fault scheme but did not research New York law governing attorney compensation for securing PIP benefits.
- Smith asked his firm’s owner whether contingent fees could be taken from PIP recoveries; the owner told him to do so.
- Smith collected approximately $83,260 in fees, about 40% of the PIP payments, taken from the clients’ PIP proceeds.
- The clients later retained new counsel, pursued civil claims concerning the fees (which settled), and disciplinary authorities filed charges against Smith.

## Issues

1. Whether collecting a contingent fee from New York PIP benefits constituted charging or collecting an illegal or clearly excessive fee under DR 2-106(A).
2. Whether undertaking the PIP-related representation without researching or knowing New York no-fault attorney-fee restrictions violated DR 6-101(A) (competence).
3. Whether reliance on a supervising attorney’s instruction excused the charged ethical violations or only affected sanction.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Ohio overruled Smith’s objections and adopted the board’s findings of misconduct.
- The court held Smith violated DR 2-106(A) by collecting fees from PIP benefits contrary to New York’s statutory structure that protects benefits from diminution by attorney fees.
- The court held Smith violated DR 6-101(A) by accepting and handling a matter involving New York no-fault rules without the necessary knowledge or reasonable research to become competent.
- The court rejected reliance on a supervisor as a defense, while treating it as mitigation in determining sanction.
- The court imposed a public reprimand.

## Legal Principles

- A fee can be “clearly excessive” when it is collected in a manner that contravenes a governing statutory scheme designed to prevent attorney fees from reducing a client’s protected benefits.
- A lawyer handling a matter implicating another jurisdiction’s specialized substantive law must investigate that law or otherwise become competent before charging fees or pursuing recovery under that regime.
- Following a supervising lawyer’s directive does not eliminate personal responsibility for compliance with disciplinary rules; it may be considered only in mitigation.
- In setting sanctions, the court may weigh mitigating factors (e.g., inexperience, reliance on supervision, restitution/civil resolution) against aggravating factors (e.g., amount taken, client vulnerability).

## Conclusion

The Supreme Court of Ohio publicly reprimanded Smith for taking contingent fees from New York PIP benefits prohibited from diminution by attorney fees and for failing to research and competently handle the cross-border no-fault fee rules, holding that supervisory direction did not excuse individual ethical responsibility.


Disciplinary Counsel v. Smith, 124 Ohio St. 3d 49, 918 N.E.2d 992 (Ohio 2009)