Legal Opinion

Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Atkin

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided January 13, 1999No. 98-713PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Per curiam

We adopt the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the board. We are particularly disturbed by respondent’s suggestion that he could bribe United States District Judge George W. White, Jr. Representations of this kind deserve the severest of sanctions. First, such statements violate DR 9-101(C) (a lawyer shall not state or imply that he is able to influence improperly or upon irrelevant grounds any tribunal, legislative body, or public official). The rationale for that rule is in EC 9-4, which states, “Because the very essence of the legal system is to provide procedures by which…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. State Ex Rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. EvansSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1987
  2. Ohio State Bar Ass'n v. ConsoldaneOhio Supreme Court · 1977
  3. Columbus Bar Ass'n v. BenisOhio Supreme Court · 1983
  4. Kentucky Bar Ass'n v. WhiteKentucky Supreme Court · 1990

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Disciplinary Counsel v. BlaszakOhio Supreme Court · 2004
  2. Dayton Bar Ass'n v. O'BrienOhio Supreme Court · 2004
  3. In Re GoreckiIllinois Supreme Court · 2003
  4. In re GoreckiIllinois Supreme Court · 2003

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API