Legal Opinion

Columbus Bar Assn. v. Kostelac

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided December 31, 1997No. 1997-1276PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Per curiam

DR 9-102 is clear. Subsections (B)(3) and (4) of the rule require a lawyer to maintain a complete accounting for all funds coming into his possession and promptly to deliver to a client funds which the client is entitled to receive.

This rule is designed to limit the prospect for, or temptation to, use client funds to the client’s detriment. See Toledo Bar Assn. v. McCreery (1982), 69 Ohio St.2d 359, 23 O.O.3d 322, 432 N.E.2d 209. The rule not only protects clients, but motivates lawyers to avoid even the appearance of impropriety. Thus, we have held that even where the client suffers no harm,…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Columbus Bar Ass'n v. ThompsonOhio Supreme Court · 1982
  2. Akron Bar Ass'n v. HughesOhio Supreme Court · 1976
  3. Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. KickOhio Supreme Court · 1986
  4. Toledo Bar Ass'n v. McCreeryOhio Supreme Court · 1982

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Disciplinary Counsel v. BlairOhio Supreme Court · 2011

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

Powered by the Exa API