The Ohio Supreme Court sanctioned Cincinnati attorney Brian Matthew Cable with a one-year license suspension, conditionally stayed, for violating professional conduct rules by paying companies to solicit and refer clients to his practice.
The Columbus Bar Association filed a complaint against Cable in July 2024, alleging violations of four professional-conduct rules. The two-count complaint centered on Cable's agreement to pay two companies to solicit and refer clients to him and his failure to supervise the nonlawyer representatives of one of those companies to ensure their compliance with the Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct.
Cable, who holds Attorney Registration No. 0086248 and was admitted to practice law in Ohio in 2010, waived a probable-cause determination in the disciplinary proceedings. The parties entered into stipulations regarding the facts and violations, streamlining the disciplinary process.
The case, *Columbus Bar Association v. Cable* (Ohio 2026), was submitted to the court on June 4, 2025, and decided on Jan. 15, 2026. The opinion was issued as Slip Opinion No. 2026-Ohio-89 and will be subject to formal revision before publication in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets.
The per curiam opinion was joined by Justices Fischer, DeWine, Deters, Hawkins, and Shanahan. Chief Justice Kennedy concurred in part and dissented in part, with Justice Leland joining the partial dissent. Justice David J. Leland of the Tenth District Court of Appeals sat for Justice Brunner.
The disciplinary action highlights ongoing concerns about improper attorney advertising and client solicitation practices in Ohio. The Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct strictly regulate how attorneys may seek clients, particularly prohibiting arrangements that involve paying third parties for client referrals or solicitation services.
Under Ohio's professional conduct rules, attorneys are prohibited from giving anything of value to a person for recommending the lawyer's services, with limited exceptions for certain types of advertising and referral services that meet specific criteria. The rules are designed to protect potential clients from improper solicitation and to maintain the integrity of the legal profession.
The failure to supervise nonlawyer representatives represents an additional violation of professional standards. Ohio attorneys are required to ensure that nonlawyer employees and contractors comply with the same ethical standards that bind lawyers, particularly when those individuals are representing the attorney's firm in client-facing activities.
The conditional stay of Cable's one-year suspension suggests that the court found mitigating factors in the case or that Cable agreed to specific conditions that would allow him to continue practicing law while serving the disciplinary sanction. Conditionally stayed suspensions typically require the attorney to comply with specific terms, such as completing continuing legal education, undergoing supervision, or refraining from certain types of practice.
The Board of Professional Conduct of the Supreme Court initially reviewed the case before certifying it to the Ohio Supreme Court for final disposition. This procedural path indicates that the matter was significant enough to warrant review by the state's highest court rather than being resolved at the board level.
Client solicitation violations have become increasingly common as attorneys seek new ways to market their services in a competitive legal marketplace. The rise of digital marketing and lead-generation companies has created new opportunities for potential violations of professional conduct rules, leading to increased scrutiny from bar associations and disciplinary authorities.
The Ohio Supreme Court's decision serves as a reminder to attorneys about the importance of carefully reviewing any marketing arrangements or referral agreements to ensure compliance with professional conduct rules. Attorneys must be particularly cautious when working with third-party companies that generate leads or solicit clients on their behalf.
For Cable, the conditional stay allows him to continue practicing law while serving his disciplinary sanction, provided he meets the conditions imposed by the court. The specific terms of the conditional stay were not detailed in the available portion of the opinion.
The case also demonstrates the active role of local bar associations, such as the Columbus Bar Association, in policing attorney conduct and bringing disciplinary actions against members of the profession who violate ethical standards.
This disciplinary action adds to the body of Ohio case law interpreting the professional conduct rules related to client solicitation and attorney advertising, providing guidance for practitioners about the boundaries of acceptable marketing practices in the legal profession.