Referral Service Sanction At Issue

An oral argument scheduled for tomorrow before the Ohio Supreme Court

Columbus Bar Association v. Brian M. Cable, Case No. 2025-0205
Hamilton County

A Cincinnati attorney is contesting a proposed suspension from the practice of law based on his payments to referral services for locating auto accident victims and signing them up as his clients. Both the attorney and the bar association investigating the case suggest he receive a public reprimand.

However, the Board of Professional Conduct recommends that the Supreme Court of Ohio suspend Brian Cable for one year with six months stayed. The board stated a more severe sanction is warranted to “protect the public from the unscrupulous use of these ‘marketing’ firms.”

When disciplinary authorities informed Cable that his receipt of accident victim referrals from two Florida-based companies violated the ethical rules for Ohio attorneys, he immediately ended the practice and cooperated with the investigation.

The Columbus Bar Association was investigating another unnamed attorney’s use of the referral services when it discovered payments from Cable’s Cincinnati law firm to one of the services. The Columbus bar conferred with the Cincinnati Bar Association, which also had received a grievance about Cable’s use of the services. The Cincinnati bar obtained an 11-minute recorded phone call between a Columbus accident victim and telemarketers purporting to be staff members of Cable’s firm. The bar associations agreed that Columbus should pursue the case.

Cable admits he violated the rules prohibiting a lawyer from giving anything of value to a person for recommending a lawyer’s services, and from engaging in telephone solicitation of employment when the lawyer’s motive is financial gain. He concedes that he didn’t research the practice enough to ensure his arrangement with the companies followed the rules. Still, he notes that other attorneys disciplined for similar arrangements in the past have received public reprimands and not actual time out of practice.

Cable’s objections to the board’s recommendation triggered an automatic oral argument before the Supreme Court.

Deputy-Turned-Lawyer Unfamiliar With Marketing Rules
Cable spent eight years as a Hamilton County deputy sheriff before attending law school and passing the bar in 2010. He worked with personal injury law firms, including Eric C. Deters & Partners; Kisling, Nestico & Redick; and attorney Gregory S. Young. At those firms, Cable wasn’t involved in the marketing strategies, but through observations of those firms’ marketing representatives, he believed that paying for referrals from a marketing company on a per-client basis was permissible under the rules governing attorney conduct.

Cable established his solo practice in Cincinnati, focusing on car accidents, slip-and-falls, and dog bite-related injury cases.

In 2022, Florida-based Bayshore Discoveries approached Cable and offered to market his law practice to potential clients. Bayshore proposed to be paid $75 per matter referred to Cable. Also in 2022, Cable was approached by another Florida firm, Legal Management Services, which also conducts business as Accident Advance & Resource Center. The firm offered to refer clients to Cable for $250 per matter and later raised the price to $300.

Attorney Pays Nearly $200,000 for Referrals
Bayshore and Legal Management conducted similar marketing operations. The referral companies purchase police crash reports from around the nation and acquire contact information for those injured in auto accidents. A company representative calls the injured victim and inquires if they would be interested in being referred to a chiropractor who could provide treatment at no cost to the victim. The firms also ask the victim if they would like to be referred to an attorney who could ensure the at-fault driver’s insurance paid for any medical treatment and lost wages. The firms also offer “pre-litigation loans” of $500, which the total owed to pay it off will be $1,000.

Once a victim expressed interest in being referred to an attorney, a referral firm representative would email the person four documents. Three of the documents were prepared by Cable on his letterhead – an attorney retention agreement, a power of attorney form, and a medical release authorization form. The new client also received a “nonsolicitation agreement,” which stated the client agreed to meet with a member of Cable’s firm and acknowledged they had not been solicited by any person affiliated with the firm or claiming to be a representative of the firm.

Cable indicated he believed that Bayshore and Legal Management had put him on a list of attorneys to potentially be selected by the accident victim. The recorded message obtained by the Cincinnati bar captured the referral company employees holding themselves out to be representatives of Cable’s firm.

In 2022 and 2023, Cable paid Bayshore about $8,300 for 111 client referrals and Legal Management about $191,000 for 695 referrals. In early 2023, the Columbus bar questioned Cable about his relationship with the referral companies. Cable conferred with an attorney and agreed to terminate the relationships in June 2023.

The Columbus bar filed a complaint with the Board of Professional Conduct in July 2024, charging Cable with four ethics violations. In addition to violating the rules against attorney solicitations and paying for referrals, Cable agreed he violated two other rules that require a lawyer to ensure those working on an attorney’s behalf also comply with all professional obligations.

The Columbus bar reported that Cable fully cooperated with the investigation and provided “immense” assistance to the bar association, which has ongoing investigations regarding illegal marketing by Ohio attorneys. Based on Cable’s reputation, assistance, and lack of prior disciplinary actions, the Columbus bar and Cable recommended that he receive a public reprimand.

Board Recommends Suspension
A three-member board panel conducted Cable’s disciplinary hearing. In its report, the panel noted the Columbus bar believes the use of “pay-as-you-go referral companies” is pervasive in Ohio. The panel also expressed concern that Cable was in business with a company routinely soliciting loans with significant repayment costs.

The panel recommended, and the board agreed, that Cable should be suspended for one year, with six months stayed on the condition that he would not commit further misconduct.

Cable doesn’t contest the rule violations but argues an actual suspension is too harsh compared to sanctions issued in past cases to attorneys who violated similar solicitation rules.

Sanction Meant To Send Message to Others, Attorney Argues
Cable argues he and the Columbus bar presented ample evidence demonstrating that a public reprimand was the appropriate sanction. He notes that no clients were harmed by his behavior, and most expressed general satisfaction about his handling of their matters. He also notes that he didn’t split or share fees with the referral companies, but only paid them a flat per-person fee.

Cable explains the purpose of disciplining an attorney is to protect the public, not to punish the lawyer. He argues the board seized on the comments of the bar association’s lawyer during the disciplinary hearing regarding the pervasiveness of the referral practices. The panel questioned the Columbus bar lawyer about the issue and was informed that several investigations were ongoing regarding lawyers not following the referral rules.

Cable argues the board is enhancing the sanction to send a message to other attorneys not to engage in the same practices. He asserts that the information about confidential investigations isn’t evidence and shouldn’t be used to jump from a jointly recommended reprimand to an actual suspension.

Cooperation Justifies Reprimand, Bar Association Maintains
The Columbus bar acknowledges its lawyer informed the panel that this type of conduct is rampant in Ohio and hoped to demonstrate that this is not an isolated incident. The Columbus bar argues the response wasn’t made to escalate the proposed sanction for Cable. The bar association expresses that Cable’s cooperation will help with future investigations and prosecutions of attorneys participating in illegal referral arrangements.

The Columbus bar indicates that it may bring several cases to the board regarding illegal marketing, and the board should reserve harsher sanctions than a reprimand for attorneys who conceal their conduct, refuse to cooperate, or continue to participate in the misconduct after the board has expressed its concerns with the practices.

– Dan Trevas

Docket entries, memoranda, briefs (including amicus briefs), and other information about this case may be accessed through the case docket.