Disciplinary Counsel v. Bandy
Ohio Supreme Court
1Per curiam
In 1989, respondent drafted a will for a client in which the ' respondent was named a beneficiary. In 1996, we amended DR 5-101(A) to add subparagraph (2), which prohibits a lawyer from preparing such a will except in very limited circumstances. Because the will in this case was prepared prior to 1996, we are guided by Krischbaum v. Dillon (1991), 58 Ohio St.3d 58, 567 N.E.2d 1291, in which we held that sanctions would be imposed in situations such as this only if the lawyer who drafted the will failed to rebut the presumption of undue influence.
In the instant case the board concluded that…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Krischbaum v. DillonOhio Supreme Court · 1991
- Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. FowerbaughOhio Supreme Court · 1995
- Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. GreeneOhio Supreme Court · 1995
- Cleveland Bar Ass'n v. KnowltonOhio Supreme Court · 1998
- Lorain County Bar Ass'n v. PapckeOhio Supreme Court · 1998
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by15 opinions
- Attorney Grievance Commission v. SteinCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2003
- Attorney Grievance Commission v. BrookeCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2003
- Columbus Bar Ass'n v. DoughertyOhio Supreme Court · 2005
- Disciplinary Counsel v. BeelerOhio Supreme Court · 2005
- Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. ShafferOhio Supreme Court · 2003
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.