Opinion

Cincinnati Bar Ass'n v. Kathman

  • 92 Ohio St. 3d 92
  • 748 N.E.2d 1091
Court
Ohio Supreme Court
Filed
Jun 13, 2001
Status
Published
Author
Pfeifer
On the bench
Cook, Douglas, Moyer, Pfeifer, Resnick, Six, Stratton, Suspension, Sweeney
Cited by
17 cases

finding violation of rule prohibiting use of trade names when name was used on letterhead

How later courts described this case

  • finding violation of rule prohibiting use of trade names when name was used on letterhead

Written by the judges who cited it.

The opinion

Pfeifer, J.,

concurring in part and dissenting in part. Among other things, the majority concludes that Kathman violated DR 3-101(A), which prohibits a lawyer from aiding “a non-lawyer in the unauthorized practice of law.” I concur with that judgment.

However, Kathman did not violate the rule accidentally or incidentally. He was part of a scheme designed to advance the unauthorized practice of law. That scheme, according to the record, continues to this day. That his lifelong friend is the principal instigator behind the scheme does not obviate Kathman’s responsibilities as an attorney. I would indefinitely suspend Kathman from the practice of law.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.