Legal Opinion

Miami County Bar Ass'n v. Thompson

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided April 2, 1997No. 96-1465PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Per curiam

We accept the findings and conclusions of the board, but believe that a more stringent penalty is warranted. Respondent represented the lender in this case, but his arrangement with the parties enabled him to receive a fee from the borrower for each loan made by the lender. Despite the fact that the lender independently decided to make each loan, this arrangement put respondent in a position where he could profit by withholding information from or exercising influence on the lender.

A lawyer should avoid even the appearance of impropriety and the implication that his professional judgment on…

2Cited by6 opinions

  1. Stark Cty. Bar Assn. v. ButtacavoliOhio Supreme Court · 2002
  2. Stark County Bar Ass'n v. ButtacavoliOhio Supreme Court · 2002
  3. Miami Cty. Bar Assn. v. ThompsonOhio Supreme Court · 1997
  4. Toledo Bar Ass'n v. CandielloOhio Supreme Court · 1999
  5. Miami County Bar Ass'n v. ThompsonOhio Supreme Court · 1998

1 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