Legal Opinion

Cincinnati Bar Ass'n v. Haas

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided September 30, 1998No. 97-2640PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Per curiam

We adopt the findings and conclusions of the board. In Warren Cty. Bar Assn. v. Bunce (1998), 81 Ohio St.3d 112, 689 N.E.2d 566, we said that in imposing a sanction, we will take into account the duty violated, the mental state of the lawyer, the actual or potential injury caused by the misconduct, and the existence of mitigating factors. The duty violated here is to refrain from compensating a third party to promote the use of a lawyer’s services. While *304many persons refer counsel to others, when such a referral is the result of monetary influence, it lacks the reliability of a disinterested…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Warren County Bar Ass'n v. BunceOhio Supreme Court · 1998
  2. Cincinnati Bar Ass'n v. RinderknechtOhio Supreme Court · 1997
  3. Cincinnati Bar Ass'n v. WhiteOhio Supreme Court · 1997

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Michael Bies v. Ed SheldonCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2014
  2. Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. HaasOhio Supreme Court · 1998
  3. Mississippi Bar v. TurnageMississippi Supreme Court · 2005
  4. Ohio State Bar Ass'n v. KanterOhio Supreme Court · 1999
  5. Cincinnati Bar Ass'n v. HaasOhio Supreme Court · 1999

2 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