Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Clavner
Ohio Supreme Court
1Per curiam
DR 6-102(A) provides that “[a] lawyer shall not attempt to exonerate himself from or limit his liability to his client for his personal malpractice.” We do not read this rule so as to prohibit an attorney from ever raising a defense against or attempting to settle a malpractice action. However, this rule places an attorney on notice that when a client has a potential cause of action for malpractice, the attorney and the client are adversaries. Because the attorney-client relationship places the attorney in a position of dominance, courts and professional ethics committees have said that a…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Committee on Legal Ethics of the West Virginia State Bar v. ComettiWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1993
- The Florida Bar v. NemecSupreme Court of Florida · 1980
3Cited by5 opinions
- Akron Bar Assn. v. WittbrodOhio Supreme Court · 2009
- Barnes v. RicottaOhio Court of Appeals · 2001
- Disciplinary Counsel v. ClavnerOhio Supreme Court · 1997
- Cleveland Bar Ass'n v. ClavnerOhio Supreme Court · 2003
- Disciplinary Counsel v. BenderOhio Supreme Court · 2014