DOCSLIB.ORG

Supreme Court Rules for the Government of the Judiciary of Ohio

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Supreme Court Rules for the Government of the Judiciary of Ohio SUPREME COURT RULES FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF THE JUDICIARY OF OHIO Rule I Professional Responsibility and Judicial Ethics II Disciplinary Procedure III Disability Retirement, Removal, or Suspension of Judges IV Mandatory Continuing Legal Education for the Judiciary V Judicial College VI Reference of Civil Action Pursuant to Section 2701.10 of the Revised Code VII Duties of Judge Leaving Office XX Title RULE I. Professional Responsibility and Judicial Ethics. Section 1. Applicability. The Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct, effective February 1, 2007, as amended, shall be binding upon all persons admitted to practice law in Ohio. The willful breach of the Rules by a Justice, judge, or candidate for judicial office shall be punished by reprimand, suspension, disbarment, or probation as provided in Gov. Jud. R. II and Gov. Bar R. V. The Ohio Code of Judicial Conduct, effective March 1, 2009, as amended, shall be binding upon all judicial officers of this state and candidates for judicial office. The willful breach of the Code shall be punished by reprimand, suspension, disbarment, or probation as provided in Gov. Jud. R. II and Gov. Bar R. V, or by retirement, removal, or suspension from office, as provided in Gov. Jud. R. III. Section 2. Duty of Lawyers. It is the duty of the lawyer to maintain towards the courts a respectful attitude, not for the sake of the temporary incumbent of the judicial office, but for the maintenance of its supreme importance. Justices and judges, not being wholly free to defend themselves, are peculiarly entitled to receive the support of lawyers against unjust criticism and clamor. Whenever there is proper ground for serious complaint of a judicial officer, it is the right and duty of the lawyer to submit a grievance to the proper authorities. These charges should be encouraged and the person making them should be protected. [Effective: July 1, 1983; amended effective October 1, 1986; January 1, 1988; January 1, 1993, February 1, 2007; May 2, 2017.] RULE II. Disciplinary Procedure. Section 1. Board of Professional Conduct of the Supreme Court. There is created under Rule V of the Supreme Court Rules for the Government of the Bar of Ohio a Board of Professional Conduct of the Supreme Court. The Board shall receive evidence, preserve the record, make findings, and submit recommendations to the Supreme Court as follows: (A) Concerning complaints of misconduct that are alleged to have been committed by a justice, judge, or candidate for judicial office; (B) Concerning allegations that a justice or judge is unable to discharge the duties of judicial office by virtue of a mental or physical disability; (C) Upon reference by the Supreme Court of conduct by a justice, judge, or candidate for judicial office affecting any proceeding under these rules or the Supreme Court Rules for the Government of the Bar of Ohio, where the acts allegedly constitute a contempt of the Supreme Court or a breach of these rules but did not take place in the presence of the Supreme Court or a member of the Supreme Court, whether by willful disobedience of any order or judgment of the Supreme Court or an order or subpoena issued by the Board of Professional Conduct, by interference with any officer of the Supreme Court in the prosecution of any duty, or otherwise. Nothing in this section shall be construed as limiting or affecting the plenary power of the Supreme Court to impose punishment with reference either to contempts or breaches of these rules committed in its presence or the plenary power of any other court with reference to contempts committed in its presence. Section 2. Authority and Duty of Disciplinary Counsel and Certified Grievance Committees. (A) Except as provided in Gov. Bar R. V and Section 5 of this rule, a grievance alleging misconduct of a judge or candidate for judicial office, or alleging that a judge is unable to discharge the duties of judicial office by virtue of a mental or physical disability, shall be filed with the Office of Disciplinary Counsel or with a grievance committee certified pursuant to Gov. Bar R. V. The Office of Disciplinary Counsel and certified grievance committees shall have authority to investigate grievances, file formal complaints with the Board, and prosecute formal complaints filed with the Board. (B) Except as provided in Section 5 and 6 of this rule, a grievance alleging misconduct of the Chief Justice or a justice of the Supreme Court, or alleging that the Chief Justice or a justice of the Supreme Court is unable to discharge the duties of judicial office by virtue of a mental or physical disability, shall be filed with the Office of Disciplinary Counsel. The Office of Disciplinary Counsel shall review the grievance to determine whether an ethical violation is alleged. If the grievance alleges an ethical violation, the Office of Disciplinary Counsel promptly shall forward the grievance to the Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals, elected pursuant to section 2501.03 of the Revised Code, for further proceedings in accordance with Section 4 of this rule. A grievance alleging misconduct by a former Chief Justice or justice of the Supreme Court shall proceed pursuant to Gov. Bar R. V or division (A) of this section. Section 3. Application of Rule. A grievance or complaint involving alleged misconduct by a justice, judge, or judicial candidate; all proceedings for the discipline of a justice, judge, or judicial candidate; and all proceedings with regard to the alleged inability of a justice or judge to discharge the duties of judicial office by virtue of a mental or physical disability shall be brought, conducted, and disposed of in accordance with the provisions of this rule and Gov. Bar R. V. Sections 4 and 6 of this rule contain provisions for adjudicating grievances and complaints against a justice of or candidate for the Supreme Court. Section 5 of this rule contains provisions for adjudicating campaign grievances and complaints against a candidate for a trial court or court of appeals. Section 4. Grievances Against Supreme Court Justices. (A) Initial review. (1) Upon receipt of a grievance from disciplinary counsel, the Chief Judge of the Courts of Appeals shall select, by lot, a three-member review panel from among the judges designated pursuant to division (A)(3) of this section. The review panel shall contact the justice named in the grievance for a written response within fourteen days to the allegations contained in the grievance. Upon request, the review panel may grant a reasonable extension of time for the justice to provide a response. (2) Upon receipt of the response, or if no response is received, the review panel shall review the grievance and any response to determine whether good cause exists for further investigation of the grievance. Within thirty days of the receipt of the response or expiration of the fourteen-day response time if no response is received, the review panel shall report its determination in writing to the Chief Judge. Upon request of the review panel and for good cause shown, the Chief Judge may extend the time for reporting its determination. If the review panel determines that good cause does not exist for further investigation, the Chief Judge shall notify the justice named in the grievance and the grievant of the determination and of the dismissal of the grievance. (3) In January each year, the administrative judge of each appellate district shall designate the appellate judge senior in service and one additional appellate judge from the district, neither of whom shall be the presiding judge of that district or the Chief Judge, to be eligible for service on a review panel pursuant to division (A)(1) of this section. The administrative judge shall advise the Chief Judge, in writing, of the designation. Appointments shall be for a calendar year, and a judge may be reappointed to subsequent terms on the review panels. (B) Appointment of special disciplinary counsel; time limits. (1)(a)(i) If the review panel determines that good cause exists for further investigation, the Chief Judge shall appoint a special disciplinary counsel to conduct further investigation of the allegations contained in the grievance and any other misconduct discovered during the course of investigating the grievance. The special disciplinary counsel shall possess the qualifications set forth in division (B)(3)(a) of this section and shall be appointed from the list maintained by disciplinary counsel pursuant to division (B)(3)(c) of this section. (ii) When appointing a special disciplinary counsel, the Chief Judge may communicate with the prior Chief Judge to determine whether special disciplinary counsel has been appointed to investigate another grievance against the same justice. If special disciplinary counsel has been appointed, the Chief Judge may appoint the same special counsel to investigate the new grievance. (b) The investigation of a grievance by special disciplinary counsel shall be concluded within sixty days from the date the grievance is transmitted to special disciplinary counsel, and a decision on disposition of the grievance shall be made within thirty days after the conclusion of the investigation. The Chief Judge may extend the time to complete an investigation, not to exceed one hundred fifty days in total, in the event of pending litigation or appeals, an unusually complex investigation, including the investigation of multiple grievances, time delays in obtaining evidence or testimony of witnesses, or for other good cause shown. No investigation shall extend more than one hundred fifty days from the date the grievance is transmitted to special disciplinary counsel. (c) The time limits set forth in this rule are not jurisdictional. No investigation or complaint shall be dismissed unless it appears that there has been an unreasonable delay and that the rights of the respondent to a fair hearing have been violated.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Color Line in Ohio Public Schools, 1829-1890
    THE COLOR LINE IN OHIO PUBLIC SCHOOLS, 1829-1890 DISSERTATION Presented In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By LEONARD ERNEST ERICKSON, B. A., M. A, ****** The Ohio State University I359 Approved Adviser College of Education ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This dissertation is not the work of the author alone, of course, but represents the contributions of many persons. While it is impossible perhaps to mention every­ one who has helped, certain officials and other persons are especially prominent in my memory for their encouragement and assistance during the course of my research. I would like to express my appreciation for the aid I have received from the clerks of the school boards at Columbus, Dayton, Toledo, and Warren, and from the Superintendent of Schools at Athens. In a similar manner I am indebted for the courtesies extended to me by the librarians at the Western Reserve Historical Society, the Ohio State Library, the Ohio Supreme Court Library, Wilberforce University, and Drake University. I am especially grateful to certain librarians for the patience and literally hours of service, even beyond the high level customary in that profession. They are Mr. Russell Dozer of the Ohio State University; Mrs. Alice P. Hook of the Historical and Philosophical Society; and Mrs. Elizabeth R. Martin, Miss Prances Goudy, Mrs, Marion Bates, and Mr. George Kirk of the Ohio Historical Society. ii Ill Much of the time for the research Involved In this study was made possible by a very generous fellowship granted for the year 1956 -1 9 5 7, for which I am Indebted to the Graduate School of the Ohio State University.
    [Show full text]
  • Conflict of Laws
    Case Western Reserve Law Review Volume 6 Issue 3 Article 9 1955 Conflict of Laws Fletcher R. Andrews Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/caselrev Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Fletcher R. Andrews, Conflict of Laws, 6 W. Rsrv. L. Rev. 227 (1955) Available at: https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/caselrev/vol6/iss3/9 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Student Journals at Case Western Reserve University School of Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Case Western Reserve Law Review by an authorized administrator of Case Western Reserve University School of Law Scholarly Commons. 19551 SURVEY OF OHIO LAW- 1954 An action shall be deemed to be commenced within the meaning of sections 2305.03 to 2305.22, inclusive ... as to each defendant, at the date of the summons which is served on him or on a co-defendant who is ...united in interest with him," would help them out of the dilemma. The court pointed out, however, that no heir at law was united in interest with executrix or the legatee,60 and that none of the three originally named heirs at law had ever been served at all, so that there was no need to determine whether service on one of them would have satisfied the statute as to the other two or as to those not even named. Furthermore, the statute only applies to defendants, and its plain provisions cannot be avoided by making defendants into plaintiffs, after the limitation had expired.
    [Show full text]
  • Task Force on Commercial Dockets
    The Supreme Court of Ohio Report and Recommendations of The Supreme Court of Ohio Task Force on Commercial Dockets december 2011 REPORT & RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE Task Force on Commercial Dockets December 2011 MAUREEN O’CONNOR Chief Justice PAUL E. PFEIFER EVELYN LUNDBERG STRATTON TERRENCE O’DONNELL JUDITH ANN LANZINGER ROBERT R. CUPP YVETTE MCGEE BROWN Justices STEVEN C. HOLLON Administrative Director Task Force on Commercial Dockets Hon. John P. Bessey (Co-chair) Columbus Hon. Patrick. F. Fischer (Co-chair) Cincinnati Hon. Reeve W. Kelsey Bowling Green James C. Kennedy Cincinnati Hon. William A. Klatt Columbus Harry D. Mercer Cleveland Scott E. North Columbus Robert G. Palmer Columbus Jeanne M. Rickert Cleveland John S. Stith Cincinnati Adrian D. Thompson Cleveland Staff Liaisons John S. VanNorman, Esq. Stephanie E. Hess, Esq. TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ..................................................................................... 1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................ 3 REPORT & RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................... 5 I. PERMANENT ESTABLISHMENT OF COMMERCIAL DOCKETS .................................. 5 II. COMMISSION ON COMMERCIAL DOCKETS .................................................................. 8 III. COMMERCIAL DOCKET JUDGES ..................................................................................... 9 IV. TRAINING ...........................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Ohio Rules of Evidence
    OHIO RULES OF EVIDENCE Article I GENERAL PROVISIONS Rule 101 Scope of rules: applicability; privileges; exceptions 102 Purpose and construction; supplementary principles 103 Rulings on evidence 104 Preliminary questions 105 Limited admissibility 106 Remainder of or related writings or recorded statements Article II JUDICIAL NOTICE 201 Judicial notice of adjudicative facts Article III PRESUMPTIONS 301 Presumptions in general in civil actions and proceedings 302 [Reserved] Article IV RELEVANCY AND ITS LIMITS 401 Definition of “relevant evidence” 402 Relevant evidence generally admissible; irrelevant evidence inadmissible 403 Exclusion of relevant evidence on grounds of prejudice, confusion, or undue delay 404 Character evidence not admissible to prove conduct; exceptions; other crimes 405 Methods of proving character 406 Habit; routine practice 407 Subsequent remedial measures 408 Compromise and offers to compromise 409 Payment of medical and similar expenses 410 Inadmissibility of pleas, offers of pleas, and related statements 411 Liability insurance Article V PRIVILEGES 501 General rule Article VI WITNESS 601 General rule of competency 602 Lack of personal knowledge 603 Oath or affirmation Rule 604 Interpreters 605 Competency of judge as witness 606 Competency of juror as witness 607 Impeachment 608 Evidence of character and conduct of witness 609 Impeachment by evidence of conviction of crime 610 Religious beliefs or opinions 611 Mode and order of interrogation and presentation 612 Writing used to refresh memory 613 Impeachment by self-contradiction
    [Show full text]
  • Supreme Court of Ohio 2020 Annual Report
    T S C of O TWENTY TWENTY ANNUAL REPORT 2020 T Annual Report S O f o C Maureen O’Connor CHIEF JUSTICE Sharon L. Kennedy Judith L. French Patrick F. Fischer R. Patrick DeWine Michael P. Donnelly Melody J. Stewart JUSTICES Jeffrey C. Hagler ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTOR Stephanie E. Hess DEPUTY ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTOR DEAR OHIOANS: What a life-changing year 2020 turned out to be! We started the year in a rather routine manner. But in about 10 short weeks, the COVID-19 crisis found its way to our state and courts. By mid-March, normal times were gone. Yet, we kept our courts operating across the state with proactive and innovative approaches to social distancing and remote technology. Our courts proved that strict public health guidelines could be observed while maintaining our commitment to court access for Ohioans. Caution reigned at our 300-plus courtrooms. We put common sense and courtesy to work for the benefit of citizens who came before the bench, as well as for staff members, attorneys, magistrates, and judges. Not one Supreme Court session was delayed or postponed during the COVID pandemic thanks to our use of virtual technology for oral arguments. We diverted $6 million in Supreme Court funds to local courts so they could follow our lead into remote technologies, keeping their doors open as much as possible while holding sessions remotely and maximizing safety precautions. The pandemic has been a trying time for trial courts. I am beyond proud of how judges, court staff, and our Supreme Court staff pivoted quickly to ensure judicial matters were resolved as expeditiously as possible while emergency situations were addressed urgently.
    [Show full text]
  • Political Parties, Interest Groups, and Elections in Ohio
    Chapter 8 Political Parties, Interest Groups, and Elections in Ohio Major and Minor Parties in Ohio Ohio has a very rich history of strong political parties. The Ohio Democratic Party is older than the Republican Party, having its origins in the foundingdistribute period of the state. Initially, a party known as the Federalists served as the main rival to the Dem- ocratic Party (or the Democratic or Jeffersonian Republicans,or as they were sometimes know). As the Federalist Party faded, the Whig Party emerged as the opponent of the Democrats.1 The Whigs were strong in the “Western Reserve” part of the state, which is the northeast corner of Ohio. The Whig Party held to strong abolitionist views and so served as the natural core for the emergence of Republican Party in Ohio in the 1850s. post, Beyond the Democrats and the Republicans, minor political parties have struggled to gain ballot access and sustain their legal status in Ohio. In the 2012 general election, no minor parties received even 1 percent of the vote, although the Libertarian Party presidential candidate came close, receiving .89 percent of the popular vote. Among thecopy, other minor parties, the Socialist Party presidential can- didate received .05 percent of the vote, while the Constitution Party received .15 percent and the Green Party received .33 percent. Even thoughnot third parties do not currently have much hope for winning the plurality of the vote necessary to actually be awarded an office in Ohio, they can affect a close election by siphoning off votes that might otherwise go to one of the majorDo party candidates.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 1 the Constitutional Framework of Ohio State Government
    Chapter 1 The Constitutional Framework of Ohio State Government Image courtesy of the Capitol Square Review and Advisory Board Advisory and Review Square Capitol the of courtesy Image Statehouse Map Room What is a Constitution? A constitution is the fundamental law of a state or nation. It is a written document agreed to by the people and thus derives its authority from those it governs. A constitution establishes the nature and character of the state or national government. It organizes government into various branches, prescribes their powers, and specifies the extent to which these powers may be exercised. The Ohio Constitution is the fundamental law of Ohio and is subject only to the restrictions of the United States Constitution, acts of Congress, and international treaties to which the United States is a party. It may be changed only by voter approval of proposed amendments. Like the United States Constitution, the Ohio Constitution organizes government into three separate branches: the legislative, the executive, and the judicial. Each branch is independent of the other two and has defined powers and responsibilities. All laws enacted by the legislative branch must comply with the Constitution’s provisions; those that do not are unenforceable. LSC A Guidebook for Ohio Legislators Page | 1 Chapter 1: The Constitutional Framework of the Ohio State Government Ohio’s first constitution was approved by Congress in 1802 as a first step to Ohio’s admission to the Union as a state. Ohio’s second constitution, the Constitution of 1851, as subsequently amended, is today’s fundamental law of Ohio. A constitution is the fundamental law of a state or nation.
    [Show full text]
  • Records and Sources of Ohio Law from 1787-1850 William H
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Cleveland-Marshall College of Law Cleveland State University EngagedScholarship@CSU Cleveland State Law Review Law Journals 1968 Records and Sources of Ohio Law from 1787-1850 William H. Vodrey Follow this and additional works at: https://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/clevstlrev Part of the Legal Writing and Research Commons How does access to this work benefit oy u? Let us know! Recommended Citation William H. Vodrey, Records and Sources of Ohio Law from 1787-1850, 17 Clev.-Marshall L. Rev. 583 (1968) This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at EngagedScholarship@CSU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Cleveland State Law Review by an authorized editor of EngagedScholarship@CSU. For more information, please contact [email protected]. 583 Records and Sources of Ohio Law From 1787-1850 William H. Vodrey* TABLE OF CONTENTS (Sequence) Preface ------------------------------------------------------ 584 Records and Sources I. Basic Documents A. Northwest Territory --- --------------- 585 B. Ohio Constitutional Convention ------------------------- 585 II. Laws of Ohio A. Miscellaneous Compilations ---------------------------- 586 B. Indexes ---------------------------------------------- 588 III. Reports of Ohio Cases A. Senate ------------------------------------------------ 589 B. Supreme Court --------------------------------------- 590 C. Common Pleas Courts --------------------------------- 592 D. Federal
    [Show full text]
  • Municipal Government in Ohio Before 1912 HARVEY WALKER*
    OHIO STATE LAW JOURNAL Volume 9 1948 Number 1 Municipal Government in Ohio Before 1912 HARVEY WALKER* While the Constitutional Convention was laboring behind closed doors in the summer heat of 1787 in Philadelphia, little bands of pioneers from Massachusetts -and Connecticut were cross- Ing the Alleghenies to Sumrills Ferry, Pennsylvania. There, during the fall and winter of 1787-88, they built boats to carry them to the Ohio, and down that mighty stream to the mouth of the Mus- kingum, where they arrived on April 7, 1788 to establish the first town in the Northwest Territory, Marietta.' Arthur St. Clanr, the first governor- of the Northwest Territory, arrived on July 9 to make it the seat of government in the Territory A few months later, in the fall of 1788, another town was settled, opposite the mouth of the Licking River, on the north bank of the Ohio. This settlemnt was more advantageously located than the first and Governor St. Clair moved the territorial offices there from Marietta in the fall of 1789 and christened the town Cincin- nati after the noted post-war Revolutionary society Other early settlements, prior to statehood, in 1802, were: Gallipolis (1790), Manchester (1791), Chillicothe (1796), Dayton (1796), Franklinton (1797), Cleveland (1796), Youngstown (1798), Warren (1799) and Ravenna (1799) From 1788 to 1799 the government of the Territory was vested in a governor, a secretary, and three judges. This group was given legislative authority until such time as the population of the terri- tory should be sufficient to warrant the election of a legislative assembly To this group, then, was given authority to establish units of local government.
    [Show full text]
  • JUN 2,4 2010 CLERK of Coiiht
    ^^.^ 31^a^1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO CASE NO. JAMES W. SCHULTZ And JULIE SCHULTZ Plaintiffs-Appellants On Appeal from the V. Tenth Appellate District No. 09AP-900 UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI College of Medicine, Defendant-Appellee --- ----------- APPELLANTS' MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF JURISDICTION Respectfully submitted, lohn ITfIVIetz [O)Yro)t#0019039] 1117 Edwards Ro Cincinnati, Ohio 45208-3412 (513) 321-8844 JUN 2,4 2010 Fax: (513) 321-6389 e-mail: [email protected] CLERK OF COIiHT Attorney for Plaintiffs-Appellants LSU2RE9GOURT OF 0HI0 Opyosing Counsel: Brian M. Kneafsey, Jr., [#00614411 James P. Triona [#00142721 Asst. Attorney General 2021 Auburn Avenue Court of Claims Defense Section Cincinnati, Ohio 45219 150 E. Gay Street, 18th Floor (513) 576-1060 Columbus, Ohio 43215 Fax: (513) 576-8792 (614) 466-7447 Fax: (614) 644-9185 jtrionana tcl-law.net bkneafseynn ae.state.oh.us Personal Counsel -Dr. Dunsker Attorney for defendants-appellees TABLE OF CONTENTS AND PROPOSITIONS OF LAW L WIIY THIS CASE INVOLVES A SUBSTANTIAL CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION AND WHY IT IS PUBLIC OR GREAT GENERAL INTEREST ........................................................................... 1 A. PROCEDURAL POSTURE ....................................................... 6 B. STATEMENT OF THE FACTS .................................................. 7 U. ARGUMENT ... ..... .... ...... ........ .......... ... ............ ...... ............ .... 8 PROPOSITION OF LAW NO.1 ................................................................8 1. In making a determination of "immunity" the Court of Claims must consider the entire set of circumstances including any admissions by the defendant. 2. When a state employee swears that his activity which brought about a lawsuit against them is "outside activity" from their State employment, they cannot disavow such sworn representation and claim immunity pursuant to ORC 9.86. PROPOSITION OF LAW NO.
    [Show full text]
  • Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct
    OHIO RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT (Effective February 1, 2007; as amended effective June 17, 2020) TABLE OF CONTENTS Preamble: A Lawyer’s Responsibilities; Scope 1 1.0 Terminology 5 Client-Lawyer Relationship 1.1 Competence 11 1.2 Scope of Representation and Allocation of Authority Between Client and 14 Lawyer 1.3 Diligence 18 1.4 Communication 20 1.5 Fees and Expenses 24 1.6 Confidentiality of Information 31 1.7 Conflict of Interest: Current Clients 39 1.8 Conflict of Interest: Current Clients: Specific Rules 50 1.9 Duties to Former Clients 61 1.10 Imputation of Conflicts of Interest: General Rule 65 1.11 Special Conflicts of Interest for Former and Current Government Officers 70 and Employees 1.12 Former Judge, Arbitrator, Mediator, or Other Third-Party Neutral 74 1.13 Organization as Client 77 1.14 Client with Diminished Capacity 82 1.15 Safekeeping Funds and Property 86 1.16 Declining or Terminating Representation 92 1.17 Sale of Law Practice 96 1.18 Duties to Prospective Client 102 Counselor 2.1 Advisor 105 2.2 [Reserved for future use; no corresponding ABA Model Rule] 2.3 Evaluation for Use by Third Persons 107 2.4 Lawyer Serving as Arbitrator, Mediator, or Third-Party Neutral 110 Advocate 3.1 Meritorious Claims and Contentions 112 3.2 Expediting Litigation [Not Adopted; See Note] 113 3.3 Candor toward the Tribunal 114 3.4 Fairness to Opposing Party and Counsel 119 3.5 Impartiality and Decorum of the Tribunal 121 3.6 Trial Publicity 124 3.7 Lawyer as Witness 127 3.8 Special Responsibilities of a Prosecutor 130 3.9 Advocate in Nonadjudicative
    [Show full text]
  • Municipal Control of Liquor in Ohio
    Case Western Reserve Law Review Volume 12 Issue 2 Article 31 1961 Municipal Control of Liquor in Ohio Reese Taylor Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/caselrev Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Reese Taylor, Municipal Control of Liquor in Ohio, 12 W. Rsrv. L. Rev. 377 (1961) Available at: https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/caselrev/vol12/iss2/31 This Note is brought to you for free and open access by the Student Journals at Case Western Reserve University School of Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Case Western Reserve Law Review by an authorized administrator of Case Western Reserve University School of Law Scholarly Commons. 1961] NOTES Municipal Control of Liquor In Ohio Do Ohio municipalities have the power to control the consumption of and the traffic in intoxicating liquor within their territorial limits? Consider the recent experience of the City of Lakewood in attempting to exercise some measure of control over the location of a retail liquor out- let. The city passed an ordinance prohibiting the operation of such a business within 800 feet of a school, church, library or public play- ground.' Contrary to this, a permit holder began selling intoxicating liquor at a location situated approximately 650 feet from one of the above named premises, and the city promptly cited her for violating the ordinance. The permit holder then sought and was granted an injunc- tion to restrain the enforcement of the ordinance,' and the injunction was upheld on appeal There was no finding that the City of Lakewood could not legislate on the subject of intoxicating liquor.
    [Show full text]