Legal Opinion

Columbus Bar Ass'n v. Clark

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided August 21, 1996No. 96-432PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Per curiam

By neglecting his professional duties in this matter, respondent caused harm to his clients. A lawyer is not required to serve every client who appears at his door, but once having agreed to represent a client, a lawyer must do so to the best of his ability. EC 6-4 of the Canons of the Code of Professional Responsibility explicitly states that “[hjaving undertaken representation, a lawyer should use proper care to safeguard the interests of his client. * * * [H]is obligation to his client requires him to prepare adequately for and give appropriate attention to his legal work.”- Our…

2Cited by6 opinions

  1. Dayton Bar Ass'n v. AndrewsOhio Supreme Court · 1997
  2. Cincinnati Bar Ass'n v. HatfieldOhio Supreme Court · 1997
  3. Columbus Bar Assn. v. ClarkOhio Supreme Court · 1996
  4. Disciplinary Counsel v. JohnsonOhio Supreme Court · 1998
  5. Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. HatfieldOhio Supreme Court · 1997

1 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