11 Ohio opinions name it 3 courts 1999–2021 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Ohio courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Colegreen2 sentences2001State v. Cole (1982), 2 Ohio St.3d 112 , 114 , 443 N.E.2d 169 , 171 ; State v. Jackson (1980), 64 Ohio St.2d 107 , 413 N.E.2d 819 , syllabus. 2001State v. Cole (1982), 2 Ohio St.3d 112 , 114 , 443 N.E.2d 169 , 171 ; State v. Jackson (1980), 64 Ohio St.2d 107 , 413 N.E.2d 819 , syllabus. | 1 | 2 |
Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Baldwingreen2 sentences2003In fact, after the attorney in Baldwin transferred the property back to his client, along with a profitable lease he had arranged, the client acknowledged that at no time had his former attorney “consciously” caused him “harm or financial detriment” by buying his property. 74 Ohio St.3d at 593, 660 N.E.2d 1145 . {¶ 31} When an attorney enters into a business transaction with a client in violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility, the closer the attorney’s misconduct is to deliberate deceit and misrepresentation, the more severe the sanction it requires. 2003In fact, after the attorney in Baldwin transferred the property back to his client, along with a profitable lease he had arranged, the client acknowledged that at no time had his former attorney “consciously” caused him “harm or financial detriment” by buying his property. 74 Ohio St.3d at 593, 660 N.E.2d 1145 . {¶ 31} When an attorney enters into a business transaction with a client in violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility, the closer the attorney’s misconduct is to deliberate deceit and misrepresentation, the more severe the sanction it requires. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Lorain Cty. Bar Ass'n v. Westgate
neutral
2 sentences2002Accordingly, in Westgate II, 84 Ohio St.3d 1418 , 702 N.E.2d 429 , we found him in contempt, revoked his probation, and suspended his license to practice law pending his compliance. {¶ 3} In July 1999, a former client of respondent began requesting that respondent return his case file and various police reports so that the client could challenge the criminal conviction for which he was serving a prison sentence. 2002Accordingly, in Westgate II, 84 Ohio St.3d 1418 , 702 N.E.2d 429 , we found him in contempt, revoked his probation, and suspended his license to practice law pending his compliance. {¶ 3} In July 1999, a former client of respondent began requesting that respondent return his case file and various police reports so that the client could challenge the criminal conviction for which he was serving a prison sentence. | 2 | 2002–2002 |
State ex rel. Zuern v. Leis
green
2 sentences2021Zuern v. Leis, 56 Ohio St.3d 20, 22 , 564 N.E.2d 81 (1990) (voluntary disclosure of confidential records in previous litigation waived any claim of exemption under R.C. 149.43). {¶ 22} Fraley also argues that her disclosure of the opinion letter cannot waive the attorney-client privilege, because “the employee subject of the [opinion letter] is also a client for whom the privilege attaches as well.” Thus, without the waiver of “any relevant employee” referred to in the letter, Fraley says the document remains privileged. 2021Zuern v. Leis, 56 Ohio St.3d 20, 22 , 564 N.E.2d 81 (1990) (voluntary disclosure of confidential records in previous litigation waived any claim of exemption under R.C. 149.43). {¶ 22} Fraley also argues that her disclosure of the opinion letter cannot waive the attorney-client privilege, because “the employee subject of the [opinion letter] is also a client for whom the privilege attaches as well.” Thus, without the waiver of “any relevant employee” referred to in the letter, Fraley says the document remains privileged. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Miller v. Bassett, Unpublished Decision (7-13-2006)
green
1 sentence2018Cuyahoga No. 86938, 2006-Ohio-3590 , 2006 WL 1934788 , ¶ 13 (" 'The attorney-client privilege bestows upon a client a privilege to refuse to disclose and to prevent others from disclosing confidential communications made between the attorney and client in the course of seeking or rendering legal advice.' "), quoting Frank W. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Burdett v. Harrah's Kansas Casino Corp.
green
1 sentence2007Kan. 2003), 294 F.Supp.2d 1215 . *Page 4 {¶ 9} "The Court hereby grants the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and Dismisses the Third Party Complaint against Third Party Defendant Client Services." {¶ 10} Frayne argues that the trial court erred in granting Client's motion because the court failed to follow the dictates of Civ.R. 12(C) by not construing the material allegations in her complaint as true, drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmovant. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
State v. Port Clinton Fisheries, Inc.
green
1 sentence2005State v. Port Clinton Fisheries (1984), 12 Ohio St.3d 114 . | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Amos v. Cohen
green
2 sentences2005The purpose of the rule is to protect the interests of the client and the adverse party, as well as the institutional integrity of the legal system." Amos v. Cohen, 156 Ohio App.3d 492 , 2004-Ohio-1265 , 806 N.E.2d 1014 , at ¶ 8, {¶ 11} Appellants attached to their memorandum contra to appellees' motion for summary judgment the affidavit of Attorney Hillman. 2005The purpose of the rule is to protect the interests of the client and the adverse party, as well as the institutional integrity of the legal system." Amos v. Cohen, 156 Ohio App.3d 492 , 2004-Ohio-1265 , 806 N.E.2d 1014 , at ¶ 8, {¶ 11} Appellants attached to their memorandum contra to appellees' motion for summary judgment the affidavit of Attorney Hillman. | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Strickland v. Washington
green
2 sentences2002Strickland v. Washington (1984), 466 U.S. 668 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 ; State v. Bradley (1989), 42 Ohio St.3d 136 . 2002Strickland v. Washington (1984), 466 U.S. 668 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 ; State v. Bradley (1989), 42 Ohio St.3d 136 . | 1 | 2002–2002 |
State v. Bradley
green
1 sentence2002Strickland v. Washington (1984), 466 U.S. 668 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 ; State v. Bradley (1989), 42 Ohio St.3d 136 . | 1 | 2002–2002 |
State v. Jackson
green
2 sentences2001State v. Cole (1982), 2 Ohio St.3d 112 , 114 , 443 N.E.2d 169 , 171 ; State v. Jackson (1980), 64 Ohio St.2d 107 , 413 N.E.2d 819 , syllabus. 2001State v. Cole (1982), 2 Ohio St.3d 112 , 114 , 443 N.E.2d 169 , 171 ; State v. Jackson (1980), 64 Ohio St.2d 107 , 413 N.E.2d 819 , syllabus. | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.