Ohio State Bar Ass'n v. Zuckerman
Ohio Supreme Court
1Per curiam
We adopt the findings and conclusions of the board, but believe a more severe sanction is warranted. The Disciplinary Rules are clear. No circumstance would have justified respondent’s payments to Linick whether they were characterized as fees or as gifts. Respondent should have known that if Linick was to receive any portion of the fees Glidden paid to respondent, Linick was required by DR 2-107 to actually have done some work or at least have assumed responsibility for the handling of the matters. Respondent should also have known that DR 2-103(B) prohibited him from paying any reward to…
2Cited by7 opinions
- Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. LinickOhio Supreme Court · 1999
- Ohio State Bar Assn. v. ZuckermanOhio Supreme Court · 1998
- Ohio State Bar Ass'n v. KanterOhio Supreme Court · 1999
- Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. LinickOhio Supreme Court · 1999
- Ohio State Bar Ass'n v. ZuckermanOhio Supreme Court · 1999
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.