Legal Opinion

Cincinnati Bar Ass'n v. Bertsche

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided December 9, 1998No. 98-824PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Per curiam

We adopt the findings of the board. Especially troubling to us, as it was to the bankruptcy court in Cincinnati, is respondent’s receipt of funds from Associates upon the refinancing of his clients’ real estate. As that court observed, respondent was either charging his clients fees for finding appropriate financing, in which case he failed to file the necessary fee applications with the bankruptcy court, or respondent was receiving finder’s fees from Associates for bringing clients to it, in which case respondent was representing Associates and was in a conflict-of-interest situation.

Even if…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Johnson v. Home State BankSupreme Court of the United States · 1991
  2. Columbus Bar Ass'n v. ZaudererOhio Supreme Court · 1997

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. BertscheOhio Supreme Court · 1998
  2. Disciplinary Counsel v. CarlsonOhio Supreme Court · 2006

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

Powered by the Exa API