Legal Opinion
Cincinnati Bar Ass'n v. Schultz
Ohio Supreme Court
Decided December 30, 1994No. 94-1796PublishedCited by 10 opinions
1Per curiam
We have reviewed the record submitted by the parties and concur in the board’s findings of misconduct and recommended sanction. Our decision to hold the majority shareholder of a legal professional association vicariously responsible for the disciplinary offenses of attorneys employed by the association is specifically authorized by Gov.Bar. R. III(3)(C), which states:
“A breach of * * * [any duty imposed by the Supreme Court Rules for the Government of the Bar or the Code of Professional Responsibility] on the part of the [legal professional] association shall be considered a breach upon the…
2Cited by10 opinions
- Burns v. DailyOhio Court of Appeals · 1996
- Columbus Bar Ass'n v. KlosOhio Supreme Court · 1998
- Cuyahoga County Bar Ass'n v. OkochaOhio Supreme Court · 1998
- Columbus Bar Ass'n v. Halliburton-CohenOhio Supreme Court · 2005
- Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. SchultzOhio Supreme Court · 1994
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.