Legal Opinion

Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Zauderer

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided April 4, 1984No. D.D. No. 83-19PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtClifford F. Brown, J.

This is a case of first impression in Ohio concerning the constitutional validity of Disciplinary Rules which restrict the content of legal service advertisements. Specifically, the question presented herein is whether the content restrictions of DR 2-101(B)2 violate the First *47Amendment to the United States Constitution and Section 11, Article I of the Ohio Constitution.

As to the Daikon Shield advertisement we agree with the findings of the panel and board that respondent violated DR 2-101(B), prohibiting illustrations in an advertisement; DR 2-104(A), in accepting employment resulting from…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. In re R. M. J.Supreme Court of the United States · 1982

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Zauderer v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel of the Supreme Court of OhioSupreme Court of the United States · 1985
  2. Committee on Professional Ethics & Conduct of the Iowa State Bar Ass'n v. HumphreySupreme Court of Iowa · 1985
  3. Disciplinary Counsel v. ShaneOhio Supreme Court · 1998
  4. Zauderer v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel of the Supreme Court of OhioSupreme Court of the United States · 1985
  5. Columbus Bar Ass'n v. ZaudererOhio Supreme Court · 1997

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API