Columbus Bar Ass'n v. Brooks
Ohio Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtMoyer, C.J.
This case demonstrates the importance of DR 9-102 and the necessity of preserving the identity of funds and property of a client. The rule against commingling a client’s funds with those of his or her attorney was established to protect against the danger inherent in all cases that such comming*526ling will result in the loss of client money and the erosion of public trust in the legal profession.
Thomas paid respondent and Winkfield a retainer fee of $13,956. Thomas’s claim was settled for $48,298. Respondent and Winkfield were entitled to receive $2,143.33 from the settlement proceeds, providing…
2Cited by11 opinions
- Miami County Bar Ass'n v. HallowsOhio Supreme Court · 1997
- Dayton Bar Ass'n v. RogersOhio Supreme Court · 1999
- Columbus Bar Assn. v. BrooksOhio Supreme Court · 1999
- Dayton Bar Assn. v. RogersOhio Supreme Court · 1999
- Miami Cty. Bar Assn. v. HallowsOhio Supreme Court · 1997
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.