Legal Opinion

Disciplinary Counsel v. Shane

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided April 22, 1998No. Nos. 97-2642 and 97-2643PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Per curiam

In 1992, when respondents began airing television commercials, DR 2-101(A) did not specifically proscribe advertisements that contained testimonials of past or present clients pertaining to a lawyer’s capability. However, on January 1, 1993, DR 2-101(A) was amended and television commercials containing the testimonials of satisfied clients, such as those broadcast by respondents, were prohibited. We agree with the conclusion of the panel that the four television commercials presented from April 1994 through early 1996, in which former clients praised the work of the firm, violated DR…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Zauderer v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel of the Supreme Court of OhioSupreme Court of the United States · 1985
  2. Warren County Bar Ass'n v. BunceOhio Supreme Court · 1998
  3. Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. ZaudererOhio Supreme Court · 1984

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Farrin v. ThigpenDistrict Court, M.D. North Carolina · 2001
  2. State v. TorresOhio Court of Appeals · 2007
  3. Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Mezher and EspohlOhio Supreme Court · 2012
  4. Columbus Bar Assn. v. BrooksOhio Supreme Court · 1999
  5. Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Mezher and EspohlOhio Supreme Court · 2012

3 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