Legal Opinion

Dayton Bar Ass'n v. Andrews

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided June 25, 1997No. 96-2807PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Per curiam

As we noted in Columbus Bar Assn. v. Flanagan (1997), 77 Ohio St.3d 381, 383, 674 N.E.2d 681, 683, “[t]he counseling of a client in financial matters, particularly about his or her choice of remedies under the Bankruptcy Code and whether a bankruptcy proceeding can be avoided, is a serious matter that deserves the attention of a qualified attorney.” If the attorney cannot or will not give this matter his necessary attention, or is not qualified to handle the matter he undertakes, he violates our Disciplinary Rules.

Respondent received fees from four clients on four separate occasions to handle…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Columbus Bar Ass'n v. FlanaganOhio Supreme Court · 1997
  2. Columbus Bar Ass'n v. ClarkOhio Supreme Court · 1996
  3. Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. CrowleyOhio Supreme Court · 1996
  4. Cincinnati Bar Ass'n v. HatfieldOhio Supreme Court · 1997

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Columbus Bar Ass'n v. FosterOhio Supreme Court · 2001
  2. Dayton Bar Assn. v. AndrewsOhio Supreme Court · 1997
  3. Dayton Bar Ass'n v. AndrewsOhio Supreme Court · 2000
  4. Cincinnati Bar Ass'n v. HarveyOhio Supreme Court · 1997
  5. Columbus Bar Assn. v. FosterOhio Supreme Court · 2001

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