Legal Opinion · Dissent

Disciplinary Counsel v. Brockler

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided February 25, 2016No. 2015-0280Published

1DissentO’Connor, C.J.

{¶ 29} The preamble to the Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct, entitled “A Lawyer’s Responsibilities,” lays out broad obligations, recognizing that “a lawyer not only represents clients but has a special responsibility for the quality of justice” and that that responsibility extends “to practicing lawyers even when they are acting in a nonprofessional capacity.” Prof.Cond.R., Preamble [1], [3]. By imposing a marginal sanction — a fully stayed one-year suspension — on respondent, Aaron Brockler, the majority minimizes his significant ethical violations and does so based upon a myopic view of…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. StatzerOhio Supreme Court · 2003
  2. Disciplinary Counsel v. PotterOhio Supreme Court · 2010
  3. Disciplinary Counsel v. NiermeyerOhio Supreme Court · 2008
  4. Columbus Bar Ass'n v. KingOhio Supreme Court · 1998
  5. Cleveland Metropolitan Bar Ass'n v. GruttadaurioOhio Supreme Court · 2013

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