Cincinnati Bar Ass'n v. Marsick
Ohio Supreme Court
1Per curiam
We accept the findings of the panel and its conclusion with respect to the Disciplinary Rules violated by respondent.
This case involves the application of those rules to an attorney who suppresses evidence when responding to interrogatories during discovery. The United States Court of Appeals was outspoken on the subject when it stated, “Our system of discovery was designed to increase the likelihood that justice will be served in each case, not to promote principles of gamesmanship and deception in which the person who hides the ball most effectively wins the case. * * * [C]ounsel’s actions…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Royal Indemnity Co. v. J. C. Penney Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1986
- Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. FowerbaughOhio Supreme Court · 1995
- James M. Abrahamsen James M. Abrahamsen, of the Estate of Gloria Jean Abrahamsen, Deceased v. Trans-State Express, Inc. Ronald E. ReaganCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1996
- Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. TrumboOhio Supreme Court · 1996
- Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. GreeneOhio Supreme Court · 1995
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Disciplinary Counsel v. StaffordOhio Supreme Court · 2011
- Cincinnati Bar Ass'n v. WallaceOhio Supreme Court · 1998
- Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. MarsickOhio Supreme Court · 1998
- Cincinnati Bar Ass'n v. MarsickOhio Supreme Court · 1998