Legal Opinion

Columbus Bar Ass'n v. Grelle

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided May 15, 1968No. D. D. No. 84PublishedCited by 14 opinions

1Per curiam

One of tbe major objections of respondent pertains to tbe conclusion of tbe board that bis conduct violated Canon 6 of tbe Canons of Professional Ethics. Canon 6 reads as follows:

“Adverse Influences and Conflicting Interests.
“It is tbe duty of a lawyer at tbe time of retainer to disclose to tbe client all tbe circumstances of his relations to tbe parties, and any interest in or connection with tbe *211controversy, which might influence the client in the selection of counsel.
“It is unprofessional to represent conflicting interests, except by express consent of all concerned given after a full…

2Cited by14 opinions

  1. State v. ManrossOhio Supreme Court · 1988
  2. State v. HopeOhio Court of Appeals · 2019
  3. Blum v. BlumCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland · 1984
  4. In Re Lee Way Holding Co.United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Ohio · 1989
  5. State v. LacyOhio Court of Appeals · 2020

9 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