Wednesday, June 30, 2010

No Deal

From the web page of the Ohio Supreme Court on a recent ethics opinion:

Opinion 2010-3 addresses the following question: “As part of the settlement of a legal malpractice claim, is it proper for a lawyer to require a current or former client to withdraw a disciplinary grievance or to refrain from filing a disciplinary grievance?”

The opinion cited several disciplinary cases as proof that an attempt by a lawyer to hinder the disciplinary process is improper.

“Such conduct constitutes conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice under Prof. Cond. Rule 8.4(d) and conduct adversely reflecting on fitness to practice law under Prof. Cond. Rule 8.4(h),” the opinion states.

“Further, in response to a demand for information by a disciplinary authority a lawyer is required by Prof. Cond. Rules 8.1(a) and 8.1(b) to respond truthfully and fully in the disciplinary matter including inquiry, investigation, and subsequent disciplinary proceeding. A lawyer’s attempts to avoid discipline hinder the disciplinary process.”

(Mike Frisch)

http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/legal_profession/2010/06/from-the-web-page-of-the-ohio-supreme-court-on-a-recent-ethics-opinion----opinion-2010-3-addresses-the-following-question.html

Bar Discipline & Process | Permalink

TrackBack URL for this entry:

http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341bfae553ef0133f1f7506d970b

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference No Deal:

Comments

Post a comment