Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. West
Ohio Supreme Court
1Per curiam
We adopt the board’s findings of fact and conclusions of law. Respect for the law and for judicial officers who interpret and apply the law is the sine qua non of an attorney’s right to continue to practice law in Ohio. Disciplinary Counsel v. Trumbo (1996), 76 Ohio St.3d 369, 372, 667 N.E.2d 1186, 1188-1189. An attorney who publicly criticizes a judge “should be certain of the merit of [the] complaint, use appropriate language, and avoid petty criticisms, for *7unrestrained and intemperate statements tend to lessen public confidence in our legal system.” EC 8-6.
Here, respondent’s conduct in…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. TrumboOhio Supreme Court · 1996
- Columbus Bar Ass'n v. HartwellOhio Supreme Court · 1988
3Cited by7 opinions
- Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. GardnerOhio Supreme Court · 2003
- Disciplinary Counsel v. ShimkoOhio Supreme Court · 2012
- Disciplinary Counsel v. StaffordOhio Supreme Court · 2012
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Oviatt.Ohio Supreme Court · 2018
- Disciplinary Counsel v. ShimkoOhio Supreme Court · 2012
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.