Cleveland Law Library Weblog

New Ohio Supreme Court Disciplinary Task Force Underway

A brand new Task Force has been created by Ohio Supreme Court Chief Justice Thomas Moyer to review Ohio's disciplinary process for lawyers and judges. This new Task Force met for the first time last week to begin the job of determining whether Ohio's current system is the "most effective and efficient means of investigating, prosecuting and adjudicating allegations of professional misconduct on the part of Ohio’s lawyers and judges." The Supreme Court's Press Release names all of the Task Force members, including current Ohio State Bar Association President Gary Leppla of Dayton.

Fairfield County Muni Court Judge Disbarred

If you have not already heard the news, the Ohio Supreme Court just permanently disbarred a former Fairfield County Municipal Court Judge named Don S. McAuliffe for multiple violations of both the Ohio Code of Professional Responsibility and the Code of Judicial Conduct. (McAuliffe's misconduct occurred before the effective date of the Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct) The Supreme Court's decision was based on the fact that McAuliffe was convicted of burning down a house he owned for the insurance money. This conduct caused the Court to conclude that McAuliffe violated rules prohibiting moral turpitude, dishonesty, fraud, deceit, misrepresentation. The Court also held that his actions were prejudicial to the administration of justice and contrary to the standards to which attorneys and judges are held. Click here to read the Court's opinion.

Supreme Court Awards $125,000 to Victims of Attorney Theft

This week, the Ohio Supreme Court announced that it awarded over $125,000 from the Clients' Security Fund to victims of attorney theft. According to the Court's Press Release, these funds covered the misconduct of 11 former or suspended attorneys and multiple clients, three (3) of whom were from Cuyahoga County. All of the cases involved work the attorneys never performed or misappropriation of client funds. Click here for more information about some of the disciplinary cases.

Suspended and Disqualified Attorneys Cannot Meet Clients or Handle Their Funds

Starting September 1st, attorneys who have been either suspended or disqualified will not be able to have any client contact and will not be able to handle client funds. Currently, Rule V of the Rules for the Government of the Bar of Ohio does not prohibit these actions, as long as they do not constitute the practice of law. The amendment will also 1) require attorneys or law firms that hire suspended or disqualified attorneys to notify clients when they work on client matters and 2) register their hires with the Office of Disciplinary Counsel. Click here to read the Ohio Supreme Court's Press Release.

Ohio Supreme Court Seeking Comments on Rules for Grievances & Discipline

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.

Ohio Supreme Court Issues Professionalism Ideals

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.

Ohio Code of Judicial Conduct To Be Reviewed

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.

Judge Disqualified Due to Conflict with Lawyer of Nonparty Witness

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.   

Asbestos Plaintiffs' Law Firm Barred from Cuyahoga County Courts

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. 

Articles on New Ohio Ethics Rules

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 .