Legal Opinion

Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Nienaber

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided December 31, 1997No. 1997-0874PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Per curiam

In Disciplinary Counsel v. Greene (1995), 74 Ohio St.3d 13, 16, 655 N.E.2d 1299, 1301, we said, “It is true that the vigorous and effective representation of a client is the responsibility of all attorneys. This duty, however, does not exist in isolation from the other obligations imposed upon an attorney through our Disciplinary Rules. In addition to the commitment to a client, a lawyer’s responsibilities include a devotion to the public good and to the maintenance and improvement of the administration of justice. * * * [T]he attorney’s duty, as an officer of the court, is to uphold the…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. In Re Integration of the Nebraska State Bar Ass'nNebraska Supreme Court · 1937
  2. Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. GreeneOhio Supreme Court · 1995
  3. Cincinnati Bar Ass'n v. NienaberOhio Supreme Court · 1994

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. FurthOhio Supreme Court · 2001
  2. Disciplinary Counsel v. FurthOhio Supreme Court · 2001
  3. Disciplinary Counsel v. StaffordOhio Supreme Court · 2011
  4. Cleveland Metropolitan Bar Association v. McElroyOhio Supreme Court · 2014
  5. Columbus Bar Ass'n. v. JamesOhio Supreme Court · 1999

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