Cincinnati Bar Ass'n v. Cohen

712 N.E.2d 118, 86 Ohio St. 3d 100
Ohio Supreme Court·Decided July 7, 1999·No. No. 98-2686·Published·Cited by 8 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Because respondent’s letters to his client state that the threat of criminal charges would be withdrawn if his fees were paid, we find, as did the board, that those threats were solely for the purpose of obtaining an advantage in a civil action and so violated the Disciplinary Rule. We therefore adopt the findings, conclusion, and recommendation of the board. Respondent is hereby publicly reprimanded. Costs are taxed to respondent.

Judgment accordingly.

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Cincinnati Bar Ass'n v. Cohen, 712 N.E.2d 118, 86 Ohio St. 3d 100 (Ohio 1999).

712 N.E.2d 118 (Cincinnati Bar Ass'n v. Cohen) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn. v. Whipple (Slip Opinion)
2022 Ohio 510 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2022)
Disciplinary Counsel v. Amaddio and Wargo (Slip Opinion)
2020 Ohio 141 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2020)
Disciplinary Counsel v. Bruce (Slip Opinion)
2020 Ohio 85 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2020)
Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Hartke
2012 Ohio 2443 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2012)
Butler County Bar Ass'n v. Cunningham
118 Ohio St. 3d 188 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2008)
Cuyahoga County Bar Ass'n v. Wise
842 N.E.2d 35 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2006)
Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Cohen
1999 Ohio 86 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1999)