Legal Opinion · Dissent

Disciplinary Counsel v. Kramer

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided September 13, 2016No. 2015-2000Published

1DissentKennedy, J.

{¶ 36} I dissent. Lawyers across Ohio, be on the qui vive! Certified grievance committees be damned! Like the sinners in Dante Alighieri’s Canto YII of the Divine Comedy: Inferno, the lead opinion’s interpretation of our rules would subject members of the Ohio bar to the prospect of multiple disciplinary proceedings in connection with the same alleged misconduct involving the same alleged victim.

{¶ 37} Because the cornerstone of our disciplinary procedure is the filing, investigation, and disposition of “a grievance,” Gov.Bar R. V(9), and the grievances at issue here involve the same victim…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Summerville v. City of Forest ParkOhio Supreme Court · 2010
  2. State ex rel. Thurn v. Cuyahoga County Board of ElectionsOhio Supreme Court · 1995
  3. State Ex Rel. Asti v. Ohio Department of Youth ServicesOhio Supreme Court · 2005
  4. Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. StatzerOhio Supreme Court · 2003
  5. State ex rel. Brilliant Electric Sign Co. v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1979

8 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