# Disciplinary Counsel v. Brown

> Ohio Supreme Court · January 25, 2011 · 127 Ohio St. 3d 1511

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6796005

## Case

- **Full name:** Disciplinary Counsel v. Brown
- **Court:** Ohio Supreme Court
- **Decided:** January 25, 2011
- **Citations:** 127 Ohio St. 3d 1511; 940 N.E.2d 562
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Pfeifer
- **Judges:** Brown, Connor, Cupp, Donnell, Lanzinger, Pfeifer, Stratton
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6796005

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6796005. Public record. Not legal advice.