June 29, 2010
Advisory Opinion: Attempt to Hinder Disciplinary Process by Lawyer Improper
In a recent advisory opinion, the Supreme Court of Ohio’s Board of Commissioners on Grievances & Discipline advised lawyers that it is improper to require a current or former client to withdraw a disciplinary grievance or to refrain from filing one as part of a legal malpractice claim settlement.
Opinion 2010-3 addresses the following question: “As part of the settlement of a legal malpractice claim, is it proper for a lawyer to require a current or former client to withdraw a disciplinary grievance or to refrain from filing a disciplinary grievance?”
The opinion cited several disciplinary cases as proof that an attempt by a lawyer to hinder the disciplinary process is improper.
“Such conduct constitutes conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice under Prof. Cond. Rule 8.4(d) and conduct adversely reflecting on fitness to practice law under Prof. Cond. Rule 8.4(h),” the opinion states.
“Further, in response to a demand for information by a disciplinary authority a lawyer is required by Prof. Cond. Rules 8.1(a) and 8.1(b) to respond truthfully and fully in the disciplinary matter including inquiry, investigation, and subsequent disciplinary proceeding. A lawyer’s attempts to avoid discipline hinder the disciplinary process.”
Advisory Opinions of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances & Discipline are informal, nonbinding opinions in response to prospective or hypothetical questions regarding the application of the Supreme Court Rules for the Government of the Bar of Ohio, the Supreme Court Rules for the Government of the Judiciary, the Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct, the Ohio Code of Judicial Conduct, and the Attorney’s Oath of Office.
Contact: Ruth Bope Dangel at 614.387.9370 or Chris Davey at 614.387.9250.
Word files may be viewed, printed, and searched using the free Word Viewer.