Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Mazer
Ohio Supreme Court
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
- Cleveland Bar Ass'n v. PodorOhio Supreme Court · 1995
- Toledo Bar Ass'n v. WestmeyerOhio Supreme Court · 1991
- Columbus Bar Ass'n v. EwingOhio Supreme Court · 1992
- Kentucky Bar Ass'n v. RobertsKentucky Supreme Court · 1979
- Cuyahoga County Bar Ass'n v. SchmelzerOhio Supreme Court · 1999
3Cited by5 opinions
- Columbus Bar Ass'n v. RossOhio Supreme Court · 2006
- Cuyahoga County Bar Ass'n v. NewmanOhio Supreme Court · 2004
- Disciplinary Counsel v. MazerOhio Supreme Court · 1999
- Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. MazerOhio Supreme Court · 2001
- Disciplinary Counsel v. MazerOhio Supreme Court · 2001