Legal Opinion

Cincinnati Bar Ass'n v. Mullaney

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided September 16, 2008No. 2008-0412PublishedCited by 14 opinions

1Per curiam

{¶ 1} We must determine in this case the appropriate sanction for each of three lawyers who, in accepting customers of Foreclosure Solutions, L.L.C., as clients, committed professional misconduct, including aiding the unauthorized practice of law, improperly sharing legal fees with nonlawyers, and failing to seek lawful objectives of clients by failing to assess their individual needs. Finding that these acts and others violated the Code of Professional Responsibility, the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline recommends that we publicly reprimand one of the lawyers, order a…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. Stark Cty. Bar Assn. v. ButtacavoliOhio Supreme Court · 2002
  2. Disciplinary Counsel v. BroerenOhio Supreme Court · 2007
  3. Cleveland Bar Ass'n v. GlatkiOhio Supreme Court · 2000
  4. Cleveland Bar Assn. v. GlatkiOhio Supreme Court · 2000
  5. Cincinnati Bar Ass'n v. TelfordOhio Supreme Court · 1999

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

3Cited by14 opinions

  1. Disciplinary Counsel v. WillardOhio Supreme Court · 2009
  2. Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Foreclosure Solutions, L.L.C.Ohio Supreme Court · 2009
  3. Disciplinary Counsel v. GalloOhio Supreme Court · 2012
  4. Cuyahoga County Bar Ass'n v. DrainOhio Supreme Court · 2008
  5. Disciplinary Counsel v. SmithOhio Supreme Court · 2009

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