Legal Opinion

Cincinnati Bar Ass'n v. Schwartz

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided February 14, 1996No. 95-838PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Per curiam

In his objections to the board’s report, respondent claims that he did not commit the cited misconduct because he notified his client that he was accepting a legal fee from her insurance company, the interests of Thomas and her insurance carrier were not in conflict, he did not use the fee for his own benefit, and he repaid the fee after his client complained to relator. For the reasons that follow, we overrule respondent’s objections and agree with the board’s findings that he violated DR 5-105(A) and (B), and 5-107(A)(l).

*491Under DR 5-105(C), an attorney may accept or continue employment by…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Cincinnati Bar Ass'n v. Fehler-SchultzOhio Supreme Court · 1992
  2. Cincinnati Bar Ass'n v. SchultzOhio Supreme Court · 1994
  3. Bar Ass'n v. ShillmanOhio Supreme Court · 1980

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. SchwartzOhio Supreme Court · 1996
  2. Disciplinary Counsel v. SchwartzOhio Supreme Court · 2012

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

Powered by the Exa API