Legal Opinion

Medina County Bar Ass'n v. Grieselhuber

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided May 14, 1997No. 96-2783PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Per curiam

We recognize that advertising assists the public in the selection of an attorney. EC 2-9. However, our Ethical Considerations, which represent the objectives toward which every member of the profession should strive warn that “[mjethods of advertising that are false, misleading or deceptive should be and are prohibited.” EC 2-9. To enable attorneys to meet these ethical objectives, our Disciplinary Rules provide specific guidelines for the content of public communications by attorneys. Underlying these guidelines is the standard of truthfulness.

We accept the findings of the board and agree…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Zauderer v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel of the Supreme Court of OhioSupreme Court of the United States · 1985
  2. Friedman v. RogersSupreme Court of the United States · 1979

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. FurthOhio Supreme Court · 2001
  2. Disciplinary Counsel v. FurthOhio Supreme Court · 2001
  3. Lorain County Bar Association v. WilliamsonOhio Supreme Court · 2017
  4. In Re Prb Docket No. 2002.093Supreme Court of Vermont · 2005
  5. Medina Cty. Bar Assn. v. GrieselhuberOhio Supreme Court · 1997

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

Powered by the Exa API