In a Press Release issued today, the Ohio Supreme Court has announced that it is seeking comments on proposed rule changes to the rules of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances & Discipline. The proposed rules would make changes to the terms of Board members and extend from 60 to 90 days the time that a written consent to discipline agreement could be entered into. Click here to view the proposed amendments.
Two days ago, on December 12, 2007, the Ohio Supreme Court's Commission on Professionalism issued a new document called "Professional Ideals for Ohio Lawyers and Judges." This document incorporates several existing document, including A Lawyer's Creed, A Lawyer's Aspirational Ideals, the Statement on Judicial Professionalism, and A Judicial Creed. It also adds a "Statement Regarding the Provision of pro bono Legal Services by Ohio Lawyers." According to the Supreme Court's Press Release, "[t]his statement encourages Ohio attorneys to regularly provide pro bono (without charge) legal services and to report their voluntary legal activities.
The Ohio Supreme Court has created a new Task Force on the Code of Judicial Conduct. According to the Court's web site, Justice Moyer created this Task Force to "review the Ohio Code of Judicial Conduct in light of recent amendments adopted by the American Bar Association to the Model Code of Judicial Conduct." More specifically, the Task Force is charged with reviewing, revising and improving the current Code. The Court's news release can be found at the following link. Appointments have already been made, and local members include Judge Colleen Conway Cooney from the 8th District Court of Appeals and Jean M. McQuillan-an attorney from Rocky River, Ohio. Like every other Task Force the Ohio Supreme Court has created in the past few years, information on the activities of this new Task Force will be periodically posted to the Supreme Court's website at the following link.
Chief Justice Moyer disqualified Judge Peter Corrigan from hearing motions for a new trial filed by convicted Board of Election workers. Moyer found an appearance of impropriety because an attorney representing Prosecutor Bill Mason, Charles Hannan, Jr., had represented Judge Corrigan in prior matters. Bill Mason was not personally a party to the case, but the defense lawyers subpoenaed him to testify. Attorney Hannan successfully defeated the subpoena.
"I'd say this is new law for when there's a situation between a judge and the county prosecutor, even when he's not a party to a case," Corrigan said. "This ruling provides guidelines for attorneys with potential conflicts of interest." Chief Justice Disqualifies Elections Case Judge by James F. McCarty, The Plain Dealer, May 11, 2007.
The election workers were convicted of crimes in connection with rigging a 2004 presidential race.
To read the opinion: Download Corrigan.pdf . Per Ken Kozlowski, Director of the Supreme Court Law Library, disqualification opinions are neither announced or posted to the Ohio Supreme Court's Website. At the end of the year, selected disqualification opinions are published if they are non-routine and make substantial legal rulings.
Judge Harry Hanna, of the Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court asbestos docket, revoked the pro hac vice privileges of a plaintiffs' law firm, because the plaintiffs' attorney lied to the court on numerous occasions and obstructed the court's investigation into his deceits. The plaintiffs' attorney, Christopher Andreas of Brayton Purcell L.L.P., told the court that he had not requested destructive testing of plaintiff's lung, when in fact, he had. The attorney also submitted false claims to an asbestos trust. In order to recover from several different asbestos trusts, the attorney gave different versions of how the plaintiff was exposed to asbestos.
The court refused to dismiss the asbestos case, finding that plaintiffs (relatives of a man who had died of mesothelioma, and the man's estate) did not know about the falsifications made by their attorney. To read the order, Kananian v. Lorillard Tobacco Co. (Jan. 18, 2007), Cuyahoga CP Case No. CV 442750, Download final_kananian_order1.doc See Law Firm Barred from Ohio Court in Asbestos Case by Dave Lenckus, Business Insurance, Jan. 19, 2007; Judge Becomes National Legal Star by James F. McCarty, The Plain Dealer, Jan. 25, 2007; Judge Slams Plaintiffs’ Firm in Asbestos Case by Peter Lattman, Wall Street Journal Online, Jan. 22, 2007.
For a bibliography of articles and CLE materials on the new Ohio Attorney Professional Conduct Rules, go to Cleveland Law Library's Legal Ethics and Professional Responsibility Research Guide. This bibliography will be updated as the library receives materials on the new rules. See our prior post: New Attorney Professional Conduct Rules .
The Sixth Circuit has issued Proposed Rules Governing Complaints of Judicial Misconduct or Disability. Compare the Current Rules Governing Complaints of Judicial Misconduct or Disability. The court is taking comments on the proposed rules until Jan. 31, 2007. For information on submitting comments, go to: Sixth Circuit Homepage.
Cleveland Bar Assn. v. CompManagement, Inc., 2006-Ohio-6108 held that certain functions performed by nonattorneys representing employers before the Ohio Industrial Commission and Bureau of Workers' Compensation did not constitute the unauthorized practice of law. The defendant, a third party administrator, "conveyed settlement offers to claimants and helped draft settlement documents, raised employer questions at claim hearings without directly examining claimants or other witnesses, orally summarized factual points assembled by a client employer during hearings, and advised employers on the potential economic costs and benefits of filing appeals or taking other legal action regarding pending claims." See Ohio Supreme Court Opinion Summaries. The court found that these activities did not constitute the unauthorized practice of law. The Cleveland Bar Association made other allegations as to the practices of CompManagement, Inc., but did not support these with sufficient evidence, the court said.
The Ohio Supreme Court proposed a change to the Rules for the Government of the Bar, establishing a Statement of Commitment to Clients and Clients' Responsibilities. The proposed rules require attorneys to make a copy of such statement readily available to clients. Comments will be accepted until November 22, 2006. The proposed amendment creates a new Section 3 under Rule IV for the Government of the Bar. See Proposed Amendment to the Rules for Government of the Bar.
The Ohio Supreme Court has decided not to pursue a rule which would prevent attorneys from contacting accident victims for 30 days after the accident. During the public comment period, an overwhelming number of letters were against the proposal. The negative letters influenced the Rules of Professional Conduct Task Force to recommend axing the proposed rule. See Court Drops Lawyer-Solicitation Rule by T.C. Brown, The Plain Dealer, September 1, 2006. See our prior post: Proposed Rules for Mail Solicitation by Attorneys.
