Legal Opinion

Columbus Bar Ass'n v. Brooks

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided June 5, 1996No. 95-1218PublishedCited by 11 opinions

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

  1. Miami County Bar Ass'n v. HallowsOhio Supreme Court · 1997
  2. Dayton Bar Ass'n v. RogersOhio Supreme Court · 1999
  3. Columbus Bar Assn. v. BrooksOhio Supreme Court · 1999
  4. Dayton Bar Assn. v. RogersOhio Supreme Court · 1999
  5. Miami Cty. Bar Assn. v. HallowsOhio Supreme Court · 1997

6 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