Legal Opinion

Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Booher

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided May 29, 1996No. 95-2554PublishedCited by 21 opinions

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

  1. In re Robert Lee Vogel, BPR 023374Tennessee Supreme Court · 2016
  2. Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. MooreOhio Supreme Court · 2004
  3. Disciplinary Counsel v. Sarver.Ohio Supreme Court · 2018
  4. Disciplinary Counsel v. BunstineOhio Supreme Court · 2013
  5. Disciplinary Counsel v. FreemanOhio Supreme Court · 2005

16 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