Legal Opinion

Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Mazer

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided July 21, 1999No. 98-2659PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Per curiam

We adopt the findings and conclusions of the board. For the following reasons, however, we believe that a more severe sanction is warranted. DR 5-105(B) provides that “[a] lawyer shall not continue multiple employment if the exercise of his independent professional judgment in behalf of a client will be or is likely to be adversely affected by his representation of another client, except to the extent permitted under DR 5-105(C).” (Emphasis added.) DR 5-105(C) permits an attorney to represent multiple clients “if it is obvious that he can adequately represent the interest of each and if each…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Cleveland Bar Ass'n v. PodorOhio Supreme Court · 1995
  2. Toledo Bar Ass'n v. WestmeyerOhio Supreme Court · 1991
  3. Columbus Bar Ass'n v. EwingOhio Supreme Court · 1992
  4. Kentucky Bar Ass'n v. RobertsKentucky Supreme Court · 1979
  5. Cuyahoga County Bar Ass'n v. SchmelzerOhio Supreme Court · 1999

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Columbus Bar Ass'n v. RossOhio Supreme Court · 2006
  2. Cuyahoga County Bar Ass'n v. NewmanOhio Supreme Court · 2004
  3. Disciplinary Counsel v. MazerOhio Supreme Court · 1999
  4. Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. MazerOhio Supreme Court · 2001
  5. Disciplinary Counsel v. MazerOhio Supreme Court · 2001

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

Powered by the Exa API