Opinion

Disciplinary Counsel v. Brown

  • 127 Ohio St. 3d 1511
  • 940 N.E.2d 562
Court
Ohio Supreme Court
Filed
Jan 25, 2011
Status
Published
Author
Pfeifer
On the bench
Brown, Connor, Cupp, Donnell, Lanzinger, Pfeifer, Stratton
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 15.4%

The opinion

Pfeifer, J.,

concurs as follows:

I concur with the court’s order. In this case, Brown used the term “J.D.” in correspondence related to a civil case in which he was representing himself, implying that he was a licensed lawyer in that case. However, I would modify the order upon which today’s order is based. In Disciplinary Counsel v. Brown, 121 Ohio St.3d 423 , 2009-Ohio-1152 , 905 N.E.2d 163, ¶ 45 , we issued an order “prohibiting respondent from using the terms ’Esq.,’ ’Esquire,’ ’J.D.,’ or ’Juris Doctor’ in conjunction with his name or business name.” We were incorrect in so limiting Brown’s use of the term “J.D.” and “Juris Doctor.” Brown does have a J.D. from Columbia University. This court can keep Brown from practicing law here, but we have no basis in saying he cannot associate his degree with his name, so long as he does not use it to hold himself out as a licensed lawyer.

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.