Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Allen
Ohio Supreme Court
1Per curiam
It is of utmost importance that the public have confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary. For that reason, Canon 2(B) of the Code of Judicial Conduct provides that a judge “should not lend the prestige of his office to advance the private interests of others; nor should he convey or permit others to convey the impression that they are in a special position to influence him. He should not testify voluntarily as a character witness.”
By her actions, respondent did use the prestige of her office to advance the private interests of others, namely a Cincinnati law firm. Her…
2Cited by11 opinions
- Ohio State Bar Assn. v. ReidOhio Supreme Court · 1999
- Disciplinary Counsel v. DannOhio Supreme Court · 2012
- Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. KartoOhio Supreme Court · 2002
- Disciplinary Counsel v. HoskinsOhio Supreme Court · 2008
- Disciplinary Counsel v. OldfieldOhio Supreme Court · 2014
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.