Cleveland Law Library Weblog

Cuyahoga DR Magistrate Ergun Appointed as Vice Chair of Ohio Supreme Court Task Force on Court Operations

Local Cuyahoga County Domestic Relations Magistrate and Administrator for Judicial Operations, Serpil Ergun, has been appointed as the Vice Chair of the Ohio Supreme Court's new Task Force on Improving Court Operations Using Remote Technology.  According to its web site:

"The purpose of the task force is to review Ohio courts' use of technology to ensure the continued and effective operation of the judicial system during the COVID-19 pandemic and make recommendations regarding the use of such technology in the future."

The full roster of members can be located here.

 

Ohio Supreme Court Creates Online Map of Courts with Specialized Dockets

The Ohio Supreme Court has created a great, interactive map of all Ohio Courts with specialized dockets. Users can search by Jurisdiction, Judge, County, and Docket Type. A search of Cuyahoga County showed that

Cleveland Municipal Court has Human Trafficking, Mental Health, Drug, and Veterans Treatment dockets

Cuyahoga County Common Pleas (General Division) has Human Trafficking, Mental Health, and Drug dockets

Cuyahoga County Common Pleas (Juvenile Division) has Mental Health, Drug, and Family Dependency dockets

South Euclid Municipal Court has a Mental Health docket

Click here to read the Ohio Supreme Court's press release.

Ohio Supreme Court Adopts Amendments to its Rules of Practice

Yesterday, the Ohio Supreme Court announced the that it had adopted various amendments to the rules that govern how cases are filed and proceed before the Court. A Press Release from the Court summarized the changes as follows:

• Rule 2.02 – Pro Hac Vice Admission – Clarifies the requirement that out-of-state attorneys must file a motion for admission before being deemed to have made an appearance in a case.
• Rule 3.02 – Filing Electronic Documents by E-mail – Eliminates filing by email because attorneys and self-represented litigants can file electronically through the Court’s e-filing portal.
• Rule 4.06 – Substitution of Parties – Directs parties on how to proceed when substituting a party is required.
• Rule 11.06 – Applications for Reopening in Death-Penalty Cases – Increases to 15 the page limit for applications and requires specific citations to the record.
• Rules 16.08 and 17.08 – Modifies the rules to permit filing a citation to relevant authority less than seven days before oral argument if the authority was issued within that timeframe.

Click here for the text of the amendments.

Ohio Supreme Court Board of Professional Conduct Issues 2 New Advisory Opinions

Earlier this week, the Ohio Supreme Court Board of Professional Conduct issued 2 new Advisory Opinions on lawyers participation in lawyer referral services and law students with legal intern certificates :

1) 2016-3: "SYLLABUS: A lawyer should carefully evaluate a lawyer referral service, or similar online model, to ensure that it complies with the Rules of Professional Conduct and the ethical requirements of the lawyer. Where the service meets all of the elements of a lawyer referral service, a participating lawyer must ensure that the service complies with Gov.Bar R. XVI, in order for the lawyer to comply with the Rules of Professional Conduct. A lawyer’s participation in an online, nonlawyer-owned legal referral service, where the lawyer is required to pay a “marketing fee” to a nonlawyer for each service completed for a client, is unethical. A lawyer must ensure that the lawyer referral service does not interfere with the lawyer’s independent professional judgment under Prof.Cond.R. 5.4. A lawyer is responsible for the conduct of the nonlawyers of the service (Prof.Cond.R. 5.3), as well as the advertising and marketing provided by the service on the lawyer’s behalf. Prof.Cond.R. 7.1, 7.2, 7.3. Additionally, a fee structure that is tied specifically to individual client representations that a lawyer completes or to the percentage of a fee is not permissible, unless the lawyer referral service is registered with the Supreme Court of Ohio. Prof.Cond.R. 1.5, Gov.Bar R. XVI."

2) 2016-4: "SYLLABUS: A law student holding a legal intern certificate, issued by the Supreme Court under Gov.Bar R. II, is engaged in the limited practice of law and bound by the Rules of Professional Conduct. Conflicts of interest arising out of a legal intern’s current or former representation of clients are imputed to all lawyers in a private law firm when the intern is employed simultaneously as a law firm clerk. The conflicts of a former legal intern, newly employed as a lawyer, are not imputed to the lawyers in a law firm, but necessitate the screening of the lawyer from any matter he or she had substantial responsibility."

Ohio Supreme Court Adopts New Probate Forms for Alcohol and Drug Treatment and Public Notice Waivers for Name Changes

The Ohio Supreme Court has just adopted new Probate Court forms for alcohol and drug treatment and public notice waivers for name changes. According to the Court, new Forms 26.0-26.14 were designed for the following situations:

"A person petitioning the court for the involuntary treatment can now submit forms to demonstrate that someone is suffering from alcohol or other drug abuse; represents a danger to himself or herself, family members, or others; and would likely benefit from treatment. The forms also include a physician evaluation, a form for emergency commitment if a respondent refuses to undergo the required evaluation, and various hearing notices."

In addition, 

"The Court also approved a new probate form to allow a person seeking a name change to do so without publishing it in a newspaper if his or her personal safety would be threatened by its publication. Applicants could include domestic violence victims or those under orders of protection. Form 21.6 reflects a process provided in R.C. 2717.01(A)(4), which requires notice of the name change in a general circulation newspaper. An applicant now can use the form to ask the probate court to waive the requirement."

The new forms will be added to the existing Standard Probate Forms in the Rules of Superintendence for the Courts of Ohio.

For more information, read the Ohio Supreme Court's New Release.

Ohio Supreme Court Board of Professional Conduct Publishes Ohio Ethics Guide on Client File Retention

The Ohio Supreme Court Board of Professional Conduct has just published its first Ethics Guide on Client File Retention. This Guide covers applicable ethical and legal obligations and discusses confidentiality of client files, retention periods, different types of documents that may be considered property of clients, client retention policies, notices to clients, file closing procedures, destruction of files, emails, digital media and cloud storage, and succession planning. The Board of Professional Conduct also plans to issue more Ethics Guides in the future on "lawyer succession planning and lawyers transitioning to the bench from private or public practice." The Ohio Supreme Court has issued a Press Release containing additional details. 

Ohio Supreme Court Rules and Forms to Contain Gender-neutral Terms

Effective today, Ohio Supreme Court rules and forms will contain gender-neutral terms. Specifically, these changes affect the following Rules: the Rules for the Government of the Bar; the Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct; the Ohio Rules of Superintendence; and the Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure. The topics covered include address marriage, divorce, child support, guardianships, adoption, domestic relations, and domestic violence. These changes were precipitated by the United States Supreme Court's decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, Case No. 14-556. All of the changes can be found at this link.

The Ohio Supreme Court Has Issued An Advisory Opinion for 2016-1 on Lawyers' Flat Fees

As its first Advisory Opinion of the year, the Ohio Supreme Court has issued Opinion 2016-1 on lawyers' flat fees. The Syllabus of this Opinion states that:

"It is proper for a lawyer to enter a flat fee agreement requiring a client to pay a fixed amount in advance of representation. The flat fee agreement must comport with the Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct. Under Prof.Cond.R. 1.15(c), a lawyer is required to deposit flat fees and expenses paid in advance for representation into an IOLTA account, unless designated as “earned upon receipt” or similarly, and only may withdraw the fees as they are earned or the expenses as they are incurred. This is a change from former DR 9-102(A). Even if a flat fee paid in advance of representation is deemed “earned upon receipt,” “nonrefundable,” or similarly, Prof.Cond.R. 1.5 requires a lawyer to return any unearned portion of the fee if the lawyer does not complete the representation for any reason. Additionally, the Rules also require that a flat fee must not be excessive under Prof.Cond.R. 1.5(a); that a lawyer shall not provide financial assistance to a client, aside from advances of court costs and expenses of litigation under Prof.Cond.R. 1.8(e); and a lawyer is required to provide competent and diligent representation to each client under Prof.Cond.R. 1.1 and 1.3."

Ohio Supreme Court Advisory Opinions can be found on the Court's Advisory Opinions page.

Ohio Supreme Court Enhances and Redesigns Docket Search Page

The Ohio Supreme Court just announced that it has redesigned its docket search page to add more search capabilities and mobile accessibility for any device.  Users can search by case no., caption, prior case no., case type (e.g., death penalty, UPL), filing date, party (e.g., individual or entity), and attorney. The Court has emphasized that "[e]ach case page will now include:

• Tabs that list the parties involved in the case and decisions in chronological order
• Link to register for case activity notification
• Link to the oral argument video, if available
• Printable view."

According to the court, the docket allows users to search over 73,000 cases back to 1985. The new docket search page also provides a Tab in the top right hand corner for "Recent Filings" in the Court from the last 5 days. For more information, read the Supreme Court's press release here.

Ohio Supreme Court Board Issues Advisory Opinion on Judges Performing Civil Marriages of Same-Sex Couples

On the heels of the Supreme Court's decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, the Ohio Supreme Court's Board of Professional Conduct has issued Advisory Opinion 2015-1. The Syllabus of this Opinion states that:

"A judge who exercises the authority to perform civil marriages may not refuse to perform same-sex marriages while continuing to perform opposite-sex marriages. A judge may not decline to perform all marriages in order to avoid marrying same-sex couples based on his or her personal, moral, or religious beliefs."

The full text of the Opinion can be found at this link, and the Supreme Court's press release can be found at this link.