Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Pavlik
Ohio Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtCook, J.
Respondent has stipulated to a violation of DR 3-101(A), conceding that he aided Misch — an out-of-state attorney — in the unauthorized practice of law in Ohio. In Part I, below, we discuss the'rules applicable to out-of-state attorneys who perform legal, services in Ohio. In Part II, we consider the appropriate sanction for respondent’s acknowledged misconduct.
I. Preventing the Unauthorized Practice of Law by Out-of-State Attorneys
A discussion of the rules pertaining to the in-state legal services rendered by out-of-state attorneys will assist members of the bar in preventing problems such…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Attorney Grievance Commission v. BrownCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1999
- Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. BrownOhio Supreme Court · 1999
- Cincinnati Bar Ass'n v. Fehler-SchultzOhio Supreme Court · 1992
- Wayne County Bar Ass'n v. NaumoffOhio Supreme Court · 1996
- 18 International, Ltd. v. Interstate Express, Inc.New York Supreme Court · 1982
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Kelley v. FerraroOhio Court of Appeals · 2010
- Columbus Bar Ass'n v. ThomasOhio Supreme Court · 2006
- Disciplinary Counsel v. WillisOhio Supreme Court · 2002
- Disciplinary Counsel v. PavlikOhio Supreme Court · 2000
- Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. WillisOhio Supreme Court · 2002