relationship test in Ohio

2009Prof.Cond.R. 1.0(n). (¶ 15} The notes to Prof.Cond.R. 1.9 indicate that “[t]he rule articulates the substantial relationship test adopted by the Supreme Court in Kala v. Aluminum Smelting & Refining Co., Inc. (1998), 81 Ohio St.3d 1 [, 688 N.E.2d 258 ].” As set forth in Kala , to determine whether counsel should be disqualified from representing a client in an action against a former client, the court should use the following three-part analysis: (1) Is there a substantial relationship between the matter at issue and the matter of the former firm’s prior representation; (2) If there is a subst

2009Prof.Cond.R. 1.0(n). (¶ 15} The notes to Prof.Cond.R. 1.9 indicate that “[t]he rule articulates the substantial relationship test adopted by the Supreme Court in Kala v. Aluminum Smelting & Refining Co., Inc. (1998), 81 Ohio St.3d 1 [, 688 N.E.2d 258 ].” As set forth in Kala , to determine whether counsel should be disqualified from representing a client in an action against a former client, the court should use the following three-part analysis: (1) Is there a substantial relationship between the matter at issue and the matter of the former firm’s prior representation; (2) If there is a subst

2002For the reasons that follow, we conclude that the motion to disqualify was properly denied. {¶ 10} In 1996, the trial court found that Jeffery should not be disqualified, applying the substantial relationship test set forth in Baker v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc. (N.D.Ohio 1995), 893 F.Supp. 1349, 1364 .

2002In 1996, the trial court found that Jeffery should not be disqualified, applying the substantial relationship test set forth in Baker v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc. (N.D.Ohio 1995), 893 F.Supp. 1349, 1364 .

2013The bill was subsequently amended in the Ohio Senate to include a relationship clause to make it “consistent with the other sections of the sexual battery [statute] * * * based on the position of trust between the victim and the offender.” Id. {¶29} But the relationship language was subsequently removed by amendment in the Ohio Senate because the bill’s sponsor was concerned about the state’s ability to prosecute offenders “under that language.” Id. {¶30} But R.C. 2907.03(A)(10) requires the state to show that the offender induced the victim “to submit by falsely representing to the other pers

2013The bill was subsequently amended in the Ohio Senate to include a relationship clause to make it “consistent with the other sections of the sexual battery [statute] * * * based on the position of trust between the victim and the offender.” Id. {¶29} But the relationship language was subsequently removed by amendment in the Ohio Senate because the bill’s sponsor was concerned about the state’s ability to prosecute offenders “under that language.” Id. {¶30} But R.C. 2907.03(A)(10) requires the state to show that the offender induced the victim “to submit by falsely representing to the other pers

2013No. 05AP-230, 2006-Ohio-2068 at ¶ 97 , quoting 1974 Committee Comment to H.B. 511.

2012The relationship is 'one in which a special confidence and trust is reposed in the integrity and fidelity of another***by virtue of this special trust.' Stone v. Davis (1981), 66 Ohio St. 2d 74 .

2009Kala, 81 Ohio St.3d 1 , 688 N.E.2d 258 , at syllabus. {¶ 16} In considering the first step of the analysis, “matters are substantially related if there is some ‘commonality of issues’ or a ‘clear connection’ between the subject matter of the former representation and that of the subsequent representation.” Harsh v. Kwait (Oct. 5, 2000), Cuyahoga App. No. 76683, 2000 WL 1474501 , *2, quoting Phillips v. Haidet (1997), 119 Ohio App.3d 322, 327 , 695 N.E.2d 292 .

2009Kala, 81 Ohio St.3d 1 , 688 N.E.2d 258 , at syllabus. {¶ 16} In considering the first step of the analysis, “matters are substantially related if there is some ‘commonality of issues’ or a ‘clear connection’ between the subject matter of the former representation and that of the subsequent representation.” Harsh v. Kwait (Oct. 5, 2000), Cuyahoga App. No. 76683, 2000 WL 1474501 , *2, quoting Phillips v. Haidet (1997), 119 Ohio App.3d 322, 327 , 695 N.E.2d 292 .