Legal Opinion

Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Pavlik

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided August 16, 2000No. 00-400PublishedCited by 5 opinions

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

  1. Attorney Grievance Commission v. BrownCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1999
  2. Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. BrownOhio Supreme Court · 1999
  3. Cincinnati Bar Ass'n v. Fehler-SchultzOhio Supreme Court · 1992
  4. Wayne County Bar Ass'n v. NaumoffOhio Supreme Court · 1996
  5. 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

  1. Kelley v. FerraroOhio Court of Appeals · 2010
  2. Columbus Bar Ass'n v. ThomasOhio Supreme Court · 2006
  3. Disciplinary Counsel v. WillisOhio Supreme Court · 2002
  4. Disciplinary Counsel v. PavlikOhio Supreme Court · 2000
  5. Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. WillisOhio Supreme Court · 2002

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

Powered by the Exa API