Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Booher
Ohio Supreme Court
1Per curiam
We concur with the board’s findings of fact and conclusions of law, but believe that a more severe sanction is warranted. The case before us involves court-appointed counsel for a criminal defendant. The lawyer-client relation in a criminal matter is inherently unequal. The client’s reliance on the ability of her counsel in a crisis situation has the effect of putting the lawyer in a position of dominance and the client in a position of dependence and vulnerability. The more vulnerable the client, the heavier is the obligation upon the attorney not to exploit the situation for his own…
2Cited by21 opinions
- In re Robert Lee Vogel, BPR 023374Tennessee Supreme Court · 2016
- Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. MooreOhio Supreme Court · 2004
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Sarver.Ohio Supreme Court · 2018
- Disciplinary Counsel v. BunstineOhio Supreme Court · 2013
- Disciplinary Counsel v. FreemanOhio Supreme Court · 2005
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.