Introducing ATLASLearn more
Legal Opinion

King v. Housel

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided July 11, 1990No. 89-536PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtMoyer, C.J.

Defendant contends that his agreement with plaintiff does not provide for any contingency payment, and even if there were such a provision, it would be unenforceable because it was not disclosed to his clients as required by DR 2-107(A)(1).

DR 2-107(A) provides:

“(A) A lawyer shall not divide a fee for legal services -with another lawyer who is not a partner in or associate of his law firm or law office, unless:
“(1) The client consents to employment of the other lawyer after a full disclosure that a division of fees will be made.
“(2) The division is made in proportion to the services performed…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Temple v. Wean United, Inc.Ohio Supreme Court · 1977
  2. Van Fossen v. Babcock & Wilcox Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1988
  3. Jeffers v. OlexoOhio Supreme Court · 1989
  4. Gugle v. LoeserOhio Supreme Court · 1944
  5. Palmer v. BreyfogleSupreme Court of Kansas · 1975

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

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. ZingarelliOhio Supreme Court · 2000
  2. Daynard v. Ness, Motley, Loadholt, Richardson & Poole, P.A.District Court, D. Massachusetts · 2001
  3. Daynard v. Ness, Motley, Loadholt, Richardson & Poole, P.A.District Court, D. Massachusetts · 2002
  4. Disciplinary Counsel v. ZingarelliOhio Supreme Court · 2000
  5. Cleveland Bar Ass'n v. MishlerOhio Supreme Court · 2008

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

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

View API DocsGet API Key

Powered by the Exa API