We use cookies to customise content for your subscription and for analytics.
If you continue to browse Lexology, we will assume that you are happy to receive all our cookies. For further information please read our Cookie Policy.

Search results

Order by: most recent most popular relevance



Results:1-5 of 5

Ohio permits "friending" and "tweeting" by judges within reason
  • Bricker & Eckler LLP
  • USA
  • January 3 2011

In Opinion 2010-7, the Supreme Court of Ohio's disciplinary board has examined the ethical implications of judges using social networking sites like Facebook and Twitter, advising judges that their social media use is permitted but must be done with caution.


Refraining from filing misconduct charges cannot be a term of malpractice settlement
  • Bricker & Eckler LLP
  • USA
  • July 7 2010

In Opinion 2010-3, the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline advises Ohio's lawyers that it is improper to require current or former clients to withdraw a disciplinary complaint - or to refrain from filing one - as part of settlement over a legal malpractice claim.


Amendments clarify lawyer’s duties regarding third-party claims to client funds
  • Bricker & Eckler LLP
  • USA
  • April 12 2010

After the Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct became effective in 2007, it was not long before lawyers who routinely maintain disputed client funds, subject to claims asserted by clients or third parties, became concerned about their duties under Rule 1.15 (d).


Proper use of the designation "General Counsel"
  • Bricker & Eckler LLP
  • USA
  • July 8 2009

The term "General Counsel" does not appear in the Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct.


Ohio Supreme Court limits duties a suspended lawyer may perform in a law office
  • Bricker & Eckler LLP
  • USA
  • April 1 2009

For many years, Ohio law firms have been permitted to hire suspended or otherwise disqualified lawyers if they register the employment with the Office of Disciplinary Counsel.