Franklin County Criminal Law Casebook
Reproduced with permission from
Allen V. Adair and the Franklin County Public Defender Office
Also see Privilege;
Ethical Considerations and Disciplinary Proceedings;
Right to Counsel.
Obligations to the client and the court
Lawyer as witness or potential witness
Withdrawal from a case or disqualification
Unauthorized practice and other issues
Obligations to the client and the court
In re Original Grand Jury Investigation
(2000), 89 Ohio St. 3d 544 -- Investigator for lead counsel in a capital
case obtained letter from client to brother containing threats against
others. On advice of the Secretary of the Board of Commissioners on
Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court, counsel read the letter to
the trial judge, then was permitted to withdraw as counsel. Prosecutor
subpoenaed the letter. Divided Supreme Court holds it had to be produced.
Read opinion carefully for ethical guidance at each stage of the situation's
development. Was disclosure optional? Would the situation have been
different if counsel did not obtain the letter or did not read it to the
trial judge, but managed to pass on the threat otherwise?
State ex rel. Holloman, 100 Ohio St. 70,
2003-Ohio-5063 -- Client brought mandamus action to compel appointed counsel to
furnish an affidavit specifying a potential plea bargain had been put on the
table at a pretrial conference. Action properly dismissed. "...(N)either
120.16(A) and (B) nor EC 7-7 imposes any legal duty on an appointed attorney to
swear to a false affidavit."
Kowalski v. Tesmer (2004), 125 S.Ct.
564 -- Attorneys did not have third party standing to bring a 1983 action to
vindicate hypothetical future clients' right to appointed counsel in appeals
from guilty pleas.
State ex rel Mancino v. Campbell
(1993), 66 Ohio St. 3d 217 -- Attorney's appearance on behalf of a client at the
preliminary hearing stage in a municipal court meant that upon bindover he
remained counsel in common pleas court, subject to the contempt powers of that
court upon his refusal to appear for a hearing.
State v. Edwards (1997), 119 Ohio App. 3d
106 -- There are fundamental matters where counsel must abide by the client's
decision, including whether to plead guilty, waive jury trial, testify or take
an appeal. Other decisions not affecting fundamental rights are generally within
the discretion of counsel. Also see State v. Tenace (1997), 121 Ohio App.
3d 702 -- Whether or not to withdraw NGRI plea was for defendant to decide.
Conn v. Gabbert (1999), 526 U.S. 286 --
Prosecutors timed execution of warrant for search of attorney's person for when
he appeared at the courthouse with a client called to testify before the grand
jury. Attorney brought 1983 action claiming interference with his right to
practice his calling. No Fourteenth Amendment violation found. Cases cited said
to provide no more than "scant metaphysical support for the idea that the use of
a search warrant by government actors violates an attorney's right to practice
Return to top of page
R.C. 2317.02 Privileged communications and
R.C. 2151.421 Report of child abuse or
neglect; investigation, plan of cooperation.
Webb, 173 Ohio App. 3d 547,
2007-Ohio-5670, ¶37-45 – When the defendant claimed he was
in the process of hiring new counsel the bailiff said she had
called that attorney and was told he would not be taking on the
case. No violation of attorney-client privilege found in this
v. Greger, 110 Ohio St. 3d 488,
2006-Ohio-4968 -- Paragraph one of the syllabus: "R.C.
2317.02(A) provides the exclusive means by which privileged
communications directly between and attorney and a client can be
waived. (State v. McDermott (1995),
72 Ohio St. 3d, 651 N.E.2d 985, followed.)" Court declines to
add a broader common law waiver rule based on hostile action of
the former client, such as set forth in
Hearn v. Rhay (E.D.Wash, 1975), 68 F.R.D. 574.
State v. Doe, 101 Ohio St. 3d 170,
2004-Ohio-705 -- Syllabus: "(1) In the event of the death of a client,
2317.02(A) authorizes the surviving spouse of the client to waive the
attorney-client privilege protecting communications between the deceased spouse
and attorneys who had represented that deceased spouse. (2) The attorney of a
deceased client may not assert attorney-client privilege to justify refusal to
answer questions of a grand jury where the surviving spouse of the attorney's
client has waived the privilege in conformity with
R.C. 2317.02(A), and the
attorney has been ordered to testify by a court." Use of "may" instead of
shall in the statute is construed to vest discretion to
ultimately reveal privileged material in the court, not the
In re Subpoena Duces Tecum Served Upon
Attorney Potts, 100 Ohio St. 3d 97,
2003-Ohio-5234 -- Syllabus: "1) Pursuant
to Crim. R. 17(C), when deciding a motion to quash a subpoena duces tecum
requesting the production of documents prior to a trial, a trial court shall
hold an evidentiary hearing. At the hearing, which may be held in camera, the
proponent of the subpoena must demonstrate that the subpoena is not unreasonable
or oppressive by showing, (1) that the documents are evidentiary and relevant;
(2) that they are not otherwise procurable reasonably in advance of trial by
exercise of due diligence; (3) that the party cannot properly prepare for trial
without such production and inspection in advance of trial and that the failure
to obtain such inspection may tend unreasonably to delay the trial; and (4) that
the application is made in good faith and is not intended as a general "fishing
expedition"' (United States v. Nixon , 418 U.S. 683,
699-700...followed. (2) When a party claims that subpoenaed documents are
privileged, a trial court shall conduct an in-camera inspection of the documents
in question before ruling on any claims of privilege."
State v. Kemper, 158 Ohio App. 3d 185,
2004-Ohio-4050 -- In a prosecution for failure to appear on a recognizance bond,
the attorney-client privilege does not reach the testimony of former counsel
concerning notice sent of the missed hearing.
State v. John Doe, Montgomery App.
No. C.A. 19408,
2002-Ohio-4966 -- Attorney was subpoenaed to testify before
a grand jury concerning disclosures client may have made in relation to an
unsolved homicide. Client had died. Surviving spouse expressly consented to
the testimony. Pursuant to
R.C. 2317.02(A) the privilege was waived and the
attorney could be found in contempt for her refusal to testify.
State v. Lentz, Lucas App. No. L-01-1461,
2003-Ohio-1038 -- Prosecutor wished to create an "expenditure analysis"
demonstrating defendant's income from presumably illegal sources. Subpoena duces
tecum was issued for fee agreement with defense counsel and billing records.
Trial court overruled motion to quash and ordered records produced for in camera
inspection. (1) Records are not per se privileged. (2) In a prior appeal the
contempt finding was set aside on the finding counsel acted in good faith in an
unsettled area of the law. (3) In second appeal following remand prior ruling on
motion to quash was the law of the case.
State ex rel. Benesch, Friedlander,
Coplan & Arnoff, L.L.P. v. Rossford
(2000), 140 Ohio App. 3d 149 -- Preliminary drafts of legal documents are
within the attorney-client privilege and are not subject to disclosure as
public records, unless their contents have otherwise appeared in public
State v. Kimmel, Marion App. No.
2004-Ohio-1207 -- OMVI defendant was allowed to call his attorney from
a Highway Patrol post before taking breath test. The call was recorded and the
arresting officer later listened to the tape. The defendant's state
constitutional right to confer privately with counsel was violated both by the
recording and listening. Dismissal is not required as a remedy as the situation
did not become known until after the jury began deliberations, and the officer
had not testified as to the substance of the conversation.
Waldman v. Waldman (1976), 48 Ohio St. 2d
176, 358 N.E. 2d 521 --(1) "It is the public policy of this state that an
attorney shall not testify concerning a communication made to him by his client
in that relation...Even when a communication falls beyond the strict letter of
R.C. 2317.01(A), the principles of that section apply if the case is plainly
within the reason and spirit of it." (2) "It is well-settled that the burden of
showing that testimony sought to be excluded under the doctrine of privileged
attorney-client communications rests upon the party seeking to exclude it." (3)
"When the attorney-client privilege exists, the privilege has been held to
encompass the protection of the address of the client. In re Heile
(1930), 65 Ohio App. 45, 49, 29 N.E. 2d 175," Compare discussion in Lemley v.
(1983), 6 Ohio St. 3d 258, 261-266.
Clark v. United States (1933), 289 U.S. 1
-- At page 15 discussing the crime-fraud exception to attorney-client privilege:
"The privilege takes flight if the relation is abused. A client who consults an
attorney for advice that will serve him in the commission of a fraud will have
no help from the law. He must let the truth be told." Also see In re Grand
Jury Proceedings, Appeal of Unnamed Grand Jury Target (5th Cir. 1982), 641
F. 2d 199, 203.
Taylor v. Sheldon (1961), 172 Ohio St.
118 -- Paragraph one of the syllabus: "Where a person approaches an attorney
with the view of retaining his services to act on the former's behalf, an
attorney-client relationship is created, and communications made to such
attorney during the preliminary conferences prior to the actual acceptance or
rejection by the attorney of the employment are privileged communications."
State v. Bissantz (1982), 3 Ohio App. 3d
108 -- Attorney client relationship did not exist between county commissioner
and assistant prosecutor who testified against him at bribery trial. Statute
making the county prosecutor legal adviser to county commissioners did not
establish relationship, and even if such an arrangement had actually been
entered into, privilege would not have barred testimony concerning any
communication from client about promoting a criminal activity.
Woodman v. Lakewood (1988), 44 Ohio App.
3d 118 -- A legal memorandum prepared by outside counsel at the request of a
city law director, which is protected by the attorney-client privilege, is not
subject to disclosure under the Public Records Law.
Cannell v. Rhodes (1986), 31 Ohio App. 3d
183, 186 -- If communication between client and counsel was not intended to
remain confidential, it is not privileged. Where a lawyer had sued to recover
fees in an amount and at an hourly rate the client claimed to have been unaware
of, evidence could be introduced that she had previously authorized negotiation.
In re Special Grand Jury No. 81-1 (Leon D.
Harvey) (4th Cir. 1982), 676 F. 2d 1005, 1008 -- While the payment of fees
and expenses is not usually within the attorney-client privilege, there is an
exception when the person invoking the privilege can show a strong probability
that disclosure would implicate the client in the very criminal activity for
which legal advice was sought. Also see
United States v. Hodge and Zweig (9th Cir. 1977), 548 F. 2d 1347, 1353;
United States v. Ponder (5th Cir. 1973), 475 F. 2d 37, 39.
In re Martin, Jr. (1943), 141 Ohio St. 87
-- (1) At p. 101: "It is now a recognized common-law rule that confidential
communications between a client and an attorney are privileged and protected
from inquiry when the client is a witness as well as when the attorney is a
witness; a client can not be compelled to disclose communications which his
attorney will not be permitted to disclose." (2) Pages 103-105: Discussion
indicates attorney must answer direct question whether he represents a
particular client as the foundation for establishing privilege exists as to
American Motors v. Huffstutler (1991), 61
Ohio St. 3d 343 -- Syllabus: "An attorney has no right under the First Amendment
to the United States Constitution or Section 11, Article I of the Ohio
Constitution to disseminate information protected by the attorney-client
privilege. (2) In order to protect the attorney-client and work product
privilege, injunctive relief is appropriate, particularly where it is
demonstrated that the attorney has already violated the privilege and threatens
to continue such practice."
State v. Shipley (1994), 94 Ohio App. 3d
771 -- Motorist who struck pedestrian on a freeway and left the scene uncertain
what had happened contacted counsel who related information to investigating
officers. Held that statements related by attorney were inadmissible. (1)
Privilege could only be waived by client. (2) Privilege not waived by the
presence of the defendant's brother during consultation with counsel. (3)
Statement's were not related within the scope of agency. (4) Evid. R. 408
prohibited admission of information provided in compromise negotiations.
Foley v. Poschke (1941), 137 Ohio St. 593
-- Communication between attorney and client in the presence of a third party
may remain privileged if the third party (a private investigator) is an agent of
either the client or the attorney.
State v. Delaney (September 2, 1993),
Franklin Co. App. No. 92AP-1408, unreported (1993 Opinions 3681) -- It was error
to permit the state to call an expert witness retained by the defense as a
rebuttal witness, as there had been no waiver of the attorney-client privilege.
State v. Richey (1992), 64 Ohio St. 3d 353 distinguished on the basis
counsel there failed to object.
State v. Simms (May 5, 1983), Franklin
Co. App. No. 82AP-254, unreported (1983 Opinions 1238, 1245-1246) -- If client
has not testified as to matters communicated to counsel, the fact that he has
testified as to other matters does not amount to a waiver of the privilege and
the attorney cannot be compelled to testify without an actual waiver by the
State v. McDermott (1995), 72 Ohio St. 3d
570 -- Syllabus: "R.C. 2317.02(A) provides the exclusive means by which
privileged communications directly between an attorney and a client can be
waived. (Sweetland v. Miles , 101 Ohio St. 501... paragraph
three of the syllabus, followed; State v. Post
, 32 Ohio St. 3d 380...paragraph one of the syllabus, modified.) Defendant
made revelations concerning a homicide to attorney representing him in another
matter. After the defendant told a third party what he had said to the attorney,
prosecutor subpoenaed the attorney to testify before the grand jury, asserting
that the attorney-client privilege had been waived. Attorney was cited in
contempt for refusal to testify. See State v. McDermott (1992), 79 Ohio
App. 3d 772. Holding means no waiver in such circumstances. Statute requires
either express waiver by client, or that the client voluntarily testifies on the
State v. Billings (1995), 103 Ohio
App. 3d 343 -- Statement by counsel to officer, in defendant's presence,
concerning defendant's whereabouts at time of incident, construed as an
State v. Fair (July 9, 1991), Franklin
Co. App. No. 90AP-363, unreported (1991 Opinions 363) -- Disclosures to a
"jailhouse lawyer" do not fall within the attorney-client privilege. Compare
Benedict v. State (1887), 44 Ohio St. 679.
Travelers Indemnity Co. v. Cochrane
(1951), 155 Ohio St. 305, 316 -- The attorney-client privilege is destroyed by
voluntary disclosure to others of the content of the statement. Also see
State v. Post (1987), 32 Ohio St. 3d 380, 385.
Return to top of page
Jackson v. Greger,
110 Ohio St. 3d 488,
2006-Ohio-4968 -- Paragraph two of the syllabus: "A showing of good cause
under Civ.R. 26(B)(3) requires demonstration of need for the materials - i.e., a
showing that the materials, or the information they contain, are relevant and
otherwise available." Here the information sought from 1983 representation would
have been available through consulting an expert.
State v. Hoop (1999), 134 Ohio App. 3d
627 -- Defendant sought to obtain name of potential exculpatory witness known to
investigator retained by counsel for a codefendant. Before trial he asserted he
believed such a witness existed, but in a motion for a new trial it was alleged
that the investigator had confirmed the existence of such a witness. (1) No
in camera hearing was required before trial, but the court erred in refusing
to conduct a hearing once the existence of the witness had been confirmed. (2)
Claims of Fifth Amendment privilege, attorney-client privilege and work product
do not bar the hearing, but are to be addressed at it. Opinion discusses manned
in which such claims may be overcome.
In re Grand Jury Proceedings (3rd Cir.
1979), 604 F. 2d 798, 801 --(1) "The parameters of the (work product) privilege
are still developing but in general the 'work product' label fairly conveys the
substance of the concept. It is distinct from and broader than the
attorney-client privilege, which protects only communications between the
attorney and his client. A lawyer may assert the work product privilege...It is
not realistic to hold that it is only the attorney who has an interest in his
work product(,) or that the principal purpose of the privilege - to foster and
protect proper preparation of a case - is not also of deep concern to the
client, the person paying for that work. To the extent a client's interest may
be affected, he, too, may assert the work product privilege." Also see In re
Grand Jury Investigation (Sun Co.)
(3rd Cir 1979), 599 F. 2d 1224; Hickman v. Taylor (1947), 329 U.S. 495,
505-514; United States v. Nobles (1975), 422 U.S. 225, 236; In re
Grand Jury Proceeding (Duffy) (8th Cir. 1973), 473 F. 2d 840, 842-843; In
re Grand Jury Empaneled Oct. 18, 1979, Appeal of Hughes (3rd Cir. 1980), 633
F. 2d 282. (2) At page 802: The crime-fraud exception may apply to the work
State v. Post (1987), 32 Ohio St. 3d 380,
385 -- Though defendant's confession to polygraph operator retained by defense
counsel was initially protected by attorney-client or work product privilege,
disclosure to cellmate that he had made a confession destroyed the privilege.
State v. Dolce (1993), 92 Ohio App. 3d
687 -- "Audit" consisting of notes prepared by defendant's office manager (later
granted immunity and called as a prosecution witness) upon a request from his
attorney to examine office files, were not discoverable under Crim. R. 16(C)(1)
as the report of an examination or test. In part because the notes were not
proffered, the court refuses to classify the notes as work product, finding them
to merely be a review of documents otherwise admitted into evidence.
Return to top of page
Lawyer as witness or potential witness
See Rule of Professional Conduct 3.7
Mentor Lagoons v. Rubin (1987), 31 Ohio
St. 3d 256 -- Syllabus: "(1) DR 5-102(A) does not render an attorney incompetent
to testify as a witness in a proceeding in which he is representing a litigant.
When an attorney seeks to testify, his employment as counsel goes to the weight,
not the competency, of his testimony. (2) When an attorney representing a
litigant in a pending case requests permission or is called to testify in that
case, the court shall first determine the admissibility of the attorney's
testimony without reference to DR 5-102(A). If the court finds that the
testimony is admissible, then that attorney, opposing counsel, or the court
sua sponte, may make a motion requesting the attorney to withdraw
voluntarily or be disqualified by the court from further representation in the
case. The court must then consider whether any of the exceptions to DR 5-102 are
applicable and, thus, whether the attorney may testify and continue to provide
representation. In making these determinations, the court is not deciding
whether a Disciplinary Rule will be violated, but rather preventing a potential
violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility." Also see In re Skrha
(1994), 98 Ohio App. 3d 487, 497-499, which also addresses the failure to file a
written motion to disqualify.
Banque Arabe et Internationale v. Ameritrust
(S.D. Ohio 1988), 690 F. Supp. 607, 614 -- "There is no need for an attorney to
testify and no basis for his disqualification under DR 5-102(A) when the
testimony the attorney could offer would either relate to uncontested issues or
prove cumulative or corroborative of other testimony offered." Compare
General Mill Supply Co. v. SCA Services, Inc. (6th Cir. 1982), 697 F. 2d
State v. Coleman (1989), 45 Ohio St. 3d
298 -- Paragraph two of the syllabus: "A prosecuting attorney should avoid being
a witness in a criminal prosecution, but where it is a complex proceeding and
substitution of counsel is not practical, and where the attorney so testifying
is not engaged in the active trial of the cause and it is the only testimony
available, such testimony is admissible and not in violation of DR 5-102."
State v. Daniels (1993), 92 Ohio App. 3d
473, 488 -- Court finds no impropriety in calling assistant prosecutor in the
Juvenile Division to rebut claims made by the defense. Witness was not actively
involved in the prosecution and provided general background information only.
State v. Mabry (1982), 5 Ohio App. 3d 13
-- Headnote 7: "If defense counsel believes that he 'ought to' be called as a
witness on behalf of his client, he must withdraw as counsel in order to appear
as a witness in the case, unless he qualifies under any of the exceptions noted
in DR 5-101(B)(1) through (4)."
Return to top of page
Conflict of interest
Rule of Professional
Conduct 1.7 -- Conflict of interest: current clients
Professional Conduct 1.8 -- Conflict of interest: current
clients: specific rules
Professional Conduct 1.9 -- Duties to former clients
Professional Conduct 1.10 -- Imputation of conflicts of interest:
Professional Conduct 1.11 -- Special conflicts of interests for
former and current government officers and employees
re A.L., Franklin App. No. 07AP-638 and 647 -- Trial guardian ad litem
worked for a public defender office. It was subsequently learned that the office
had provided representation in criminal prosecutions to both parents in
termination of parental rights proceedings. Since no party objected at trial,
review of claimed conflict of interest is on the basis of plain error. Since the
conflict appears to have been unknown to the trial guardian, had no influence on
her duties to protect the child‘s interests, and did not affect the integrity of
proceedings, reversal is not warranted
Mickens v. Taylor (2002), 122 S.Ct.
1237 -- After a judge dismissed charges against a juvenile murder victim, he
appointed the juvenile's attorney to represent the murderer. Conflict of
interest was ultimately identified by habeas counsel. Court declines to adopt an
automatic reversal rule. Instead the defendant must demonstrate prejudice
following Strickland analysis. Four justices dissent.
Columbus Bar Association v. Ross, 107
Ohio St. 3d 354,
2006-Ohio-5 -- Six month suspended suspension to attorney who
did not ignore the possibility of a conflict of interest in continued
representation of boyhood friends, but waited too long before exiting their
cases. Feds wanted one to identify the other as his drug supplier, but would not
provide attorney with more specific information as to a basis for this belief.
State v. Lordi (2000), 140 Ohio App. 3d
561, 570 -- "Where there is a right to counsel, the Sixth Amendment to the
United Stated Constitution guarantees that representation shall be free from
conflicts of interest...Both defense counsel and the trial court are under an
affirmative duty to ensure that a defendant's representation is conflict
free...The trial court's duty arises when the court knows or reasonably should
have known a possible conflict of interest exists, or when the defendant objects
to multiple representation...When this duty arises, the court is
constitutionally required to conduct an inquiry into a possible conflict of
interest. A lawyer represents conflicting interests when on behalf of one
client, it is his duty to contend for something which his duty to another client
requires him to oppose...A possibility of conflict exists when the interests of
a defendant may diverge at some point so as to place the attorney under
inconsistent duties...If a question of conflict of interest arises after trial,
the defendant must prove an actual conflict of interest, as opposed to a serious
potential for conflict." No conflict found where an associate represented a
witness in the past.
State v. Ahmed, 103 Ohio St. 3d 27,
2004-Ohio-4190 -- ¶ 24-33: Capital defendant filed a federal lawsuit against
appointed counsel. Court views this as a
ruse and refuses to find error in trial court's refusal to discharge counsel. ¶
102-108: Defendant was not denied his constitutional right to
self-representation. Court tendered a waiver form. The defendant added written
qualifications and never gave clear responses indicating an understanding of the
State v. Pelphrey, 149 Ohio App. 3d
2002-Ohio-5491 -- Defendant filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea and
alternately sought postconviction relief after new counsel discovered his
predecessor represented both the defendant and one of the victims. Court was
obliged to conduct a hearing.
State v. Condon, 152 Ohio App. 3d 629,
2003-Ohio-2335 -- Prosecutor's office representation of county employees sued
civilly by families of corpses photographed at the morgue did not give rise to a
conflict of interest forcing disqualification of that office in prosecution of
the photographer for abuse of a corpse. ¶ 47: "...(B)ecause the relationship
between attorneys in a government office is different from the relationship
between those in a private firm. the mere appearance of impropriety in a
government office is not sufficient in and of itself to warrant vicarious
Holloway v. Arkansas (1978), 435 U.S.
475 -- Refusal to appoint separate counsel on indication of a conflict of
interest arising from representation of multiple codefendants is per se a denial
of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel, unless court has taken proper steps to
determine risk of conflict is remote. Also see Glasser v. United States
(1942), 315 U.S. 60.
Cuyler v. Sullivan (1980), 446 U.S. 335
-- Unless a defendant has been denied the opportunity to object to multiple
representation, on collateral review he must demonstrate that an actual conflict
of interest denied him effective representation.
State v. Manross (1988), 40 Ohio St. 3d
180 -- (1) Though not constitutionally required in most circumstances, the
better practice is to advise defendants who are represented by the same attorney
of their right to effective assistance of counsel and inquire whether they wish
separate representation. (2) At p. 182: "A lawyer represents conflicting
interests when, on behalf of one client, it is his duty to contend for that
which his duty to another client requires him to oppose." [Citing Columbus
Bar Association v. Grelle (1968), 14 Ohio St. 2d 208.]
Burger v. Kemp (1987), 483 U.S. 776 -- No
per se conflict of interest where law partners represented codefendants in
separate trials and same attorney prepared appellate briefs in both cases.
State v. Getsy (1998), 84 Ohio St. 3d
180, 187 -- To violate the Sixth Amendment a conflict of interest must be
actual, not just possible. The lawyer's performance must be adversely affected.
No conflict found where part time public defender was retained to represent one
codefendant and her supervisor represented another.
Kala v. Aluminum Smelting & Refining Co., Inc.
(1998), 81 Ohio St. 3d 1 -- Attorney representing Kala in an employment suit
went to work for firm representing the company while appeal was pending.
Company's firm disqualified.
State v. Wiles (1998), 126 Ohio App. 3d
71 -- Former P.D. went to work for the prosecutor's office. It is presumed that
he shared information with his new colleagues which could have been used against
a former death penalty client in subsequent postconviction proceedings. A
hearing was required to rebut this presumption in response to a motion to
disqualify the prosecutor's office.
State v. Gillard (1997), 78 Ohio St. 3d
548 -- Same attorney represented brothers initially charged with the same
homicide. One pleaded guilty to discharging a firearm in the city limits, the
other received the death penalty. Opinion discusses the distinction between
possible and actual conflicts of interests, the constitutional right to conflict
free representation, standards for determining when an actual conflict exists
and when reversal is required. Court splits on whether facts demonstrate an
State v. Dillon (1995), 74 Ohio St. 3d
166 -- Though the same defense attorney represented two people charged with
similar crimes, one of whom was called as a rebuttal witness at the trial of the
other, upon careful analysis of the facts and sequence of events there was no
violation of the Sixth Amendment right to conflict free representation. Counsel
was found not to have represented conflicting interests and it was concluded
that there was neither an actual conflict of interest or the possibility of one.
In re Brodbeck (1994), 97 Ohio App. 3d
652 -- Court finds no error in the appointment of a single attorney to represent
both parents in termination of parental rights proceedings where there was no
evidence that the couple planned to separate or dissolve their marriage or that
they did not intend to raise their children together.
State v. Ingol (1993), 89 Ohio App. 3d 45
-- Same attorney represented codefendants. One pleaded guilty, then testified at
the trial of the other. Court finds first that there was nothing alerting the
court to a possible conflict of interest, requiring inquiry. Nor was there an
actual conflict of interest, as both the defendant and the codefendant testified
that the defendant had nothing to do with the drug transaction in question.
State v. Walker (1998), 130 Ohio App. 3d
247 -- Retained counsel was under indictment at time of trial, but no jurors
responded when asked if they had any knowledge about the parties or their
attorneys which might affect their duties as jurors. Defendant faulted for not
personally raising the question of a conflict of interest when this situation
was mentioned in his presence. Since counsel was not indicted until after
pretrial conferences, court finds her ability to effectively negotiate on her
client's behalf was not affected. Compare United States v. McLain (11th
Cir. 1987), 823 F. 2d 1457 where pending investigation of counsel was found to
affect his ability to properly represent his client.
Mahoning County Bar Association v. Theofilos
(1988), 36 Ohio St. 3d 43 -- A lawyer may not ethically prepare a client's will
in which he and his son are the sole beneficiaries.
Ussury v. St. Joseph Hospital (1988), 43
Ohio App. 3d 48 -- Though he is not directly involved in providing
representation, an attorney and his new law firm may be disqualified from
representing defendant in a case when he previously represented the plaintiff
and reviewed materials and provided advise relating to the case.
In re Adoption of Infant Girl Banda
(1988), 53 Ohio App. 3d 105 -- DR 5-107(A) requires full disclosure by the
attorney and the consent of the client before the attorney may accept payment
for legal services from someone other than the client.
Sturm v. Sturm (1991), 61 Ohio St. 3d 298
-- Syllabus: "Where a party expressly waives a conflict of interest by a written
judgment entry signed by the party, such waiver remains in effect as a matter of
law when the action of which it was part is dismissed voluntarily and refiled in
Return to top of page
Withdrawal from a case or disqualification
Rule of Professional
Conduct 1.16 -- Declining or terminating representation
State ex rel. Buck v. Maloney, 102 Ohio
St. 3d 250 -- Probate judge barred two attorneys from practice in his court. The
Court of Appeals dismissed their prohibition complaint for failing to state a
cause of action. Reversed. Only the Supreme Court has authority to control
practice before the courts of this state. The superintendence rules did not
delegate the authority to suspend attorneys in these circumstances. Instead of
remanding, the court exercises its plenary authority to grant the writ.
State v. Williams, 99 Ohio St. 3d 493,
2003-Ohio-4396, ¶ 130-140 -- Following a guilty verdict at the guilt phase of a
capital trial, the defendant hit one of his attorneys in the face. The trial
court erroneously overruled motions to withdraw filed by both attorneys.
State v. Williams, Lucas App. Nos.
2003-Ohio-2533 -- A trial court order disqualifying appointed
counsel is not a final appealable order.
State ex rel Kister-Welty v. Hague, 160
Ohio App. 3d 486,
2005-Ohio-1788 -- Judge disqualified an attorney from
representing the mother in custody proceedings because that attorney had
previously represented the child. (1) Prohibition does not lie as the judge
acted within the scope of his jurisdiction. (2) Prohibition does not lie as the
mother had an adequate remedy at law in the form of an immediate appeal from the
State, ex rel Kura, v. Sheward (June 11,
1992), Franklin Co. App. No. 90AP-791, unreported (1992 Opinions 2451) -- An
individual trial judge, who is not the administrative judge, may not summarily
discharge the public defender office as counsel based on the claimed tardiness
of an individual attorney assigned to handle the case. The remedy when court has
erroneously done so is through immediate appeal.
State, ex rel Jones, v. Stokes (1989), 49
Ohio App. 3d 136 -- Trial judges are without authority to order the public
defender to not assign a particular employee to their courtrooms.
United States v. James (2nd Cir. 1983),
708 F. 2d 40 -- No abuse in disqualifying attorneys on motion of government and
former client where defense planned to claim entrapment of present clients by
United States v. Cunningham (2nd Cir.
1982), 672 F. 2d 1064 -- Trial court erroneously overruled government's motion
to disqualify defense counsel who had formerly represented a witness. Defendant
had been successfully represented by same attorney for many years, witness did
not ask for attorney to be disqualified and counsel and defendant agreed that
any privileged information would not be used in cross-examination of the
Maple Heights v. Redi Car Wash (1988), 51
Ohio App. 3d 60 -- Prior to sentencing hearing court disqualified assistant city
prosecutor who had initiated a libel suit against defendants he had prosecuted
and who had threatened filing of additional charges. At p. 61: "Under
appropriate circumstances, an attorney may be disqualified from continued
participation in ongoing litigation in the event of truly egregious misconduct
which is likely to infect future proceedings, and this authority to disqualify
an attorney does not conflict with the Ohio Supreme Court's exclusive authority
over attorney disciplinary proceedings."
Morgan v. North Coast Cable Co. (1992),
63 Ohio St. 3d 156 -- Syllabus: "As a general rule, a stranger to an
attorney-client relationship (here another party to the litigation in progress)
lacks standing to complain of a conflict of interest in that relationship."
Guccione v. Hustler Magazine (1985), 17
Ohio St. 3d 88 -- Syllabus: "An order denying permission for out-of-state
counsel (otherwise competent) to represent a litigant is a final appealable
order. Appears to overrule Bernbaum v. Silverstein (1980), 62 Ohio St. 2d
445 -- Syllabus: "The overruling of a motion to disqualify counsel is not an
order made in a special proceeding and is, therefore, not a final appealable
order as defined by R.C. 2505.02."
Melling v. Stralaka (1984), 12 Ohio St.
3d 105 -- A trial court may not usurp the constitutional authority of the
Supreme Court to make rules governing the admission to the practice of law and
the discipline of persons so admitted by issuing an order barring city
solicitors, law directors, municipal and county prosecutors and their assistants
from appearing in criminal cases. Also see In re a Juvenile (1978), 61
Ohio App. 2d 235.
Trumbull County Bar Association v. Donlin
(1996), 76 Ohio St. 3d 152, 155 -- "While it probably would have been more
prudent of respondent to have notified his client in writing that he would not
handle the case further, the fact that it was not reduced to writing does not
rise to the level of a violation under DR 2-110(A)(2)."
Verbanic v. Verbanic (1994), 70 Ohio St.
3d 41 -- The judge owes a duty to both sides to insure proceedings are conducted
in a dignified and legal manner. Attorney in a divorce trial should have been
removed. Among his triumphs were calling the judge a sick man and telling his he
would not see Christmas, pushing another attorney, and suggesting that the
husband had AIDS. He also failed to introduce necessary testimony.
to top of page
Wooden v. Kentner, 153 Ohio App. 3d 24,
2003-Ohio-2695 -- Summary judgment properly granted in a malpractice action
against a public defender office and two employees. Public defenders are engaged
in a governmental function and are immune from liability unless an exception to
the general grant exists. Such an exception might arise pursuant to former
2744.02(B)(4) pertaining to negligence on premises used in the performance of a
public function. But that statute has been amended to now cover only physical
defects in a building. Under the former version, the defense existed that the
acts complained of were within the discretion of an employee. That applies to
the efforts of an attorney. In this action there was no claim immunity was
pierced by acts beyond the scope of employment, malice or statutory exception.
Smith v. Conley, 109 Ohio St. 3d 141,
2006-Ohio-2035 -- Former client in a criminal case brought a malpractice action
that was timely if measured from the time counsel filed a motion to withdraw but
untimely if measured from the time the client was notified that the
attorney-client relationship was terminated. Held that the date of termination
is a question of fact to be determined by considering the action of the parties.
It is not controlled by local rules of court.
Krahn v. Kinney (1989), 43 Ohio St. 3d
103 -- Syllabus: "To state a cause of action for legal malpractice arising from
criminal representation, a plaintiff must allege (1) an attorney-client
relationship giving rise to a duty, (2) a breach of that duty, and (3) damages
proximately caused by the breach."
Huffer v. Cicero (1995), 107 Ohio App. 3d
65 -- Retained counsel failed to convey plea offer to client. Court properly
granted default judgment on issue of liability, in view of efforts to dodge
service and failure to file a timely answer. Damages were limited to the $16,000
paid counsel. Held should also have included the $10,000 in additional fines
paid, $1,217 in court costs, a $1,000 bond, and $26,500 in attorney fees
Belcher v. Lesley (December 12, 1995),
Franklin Co. App. No. 95APE05-662, 663, unreported (1995 Opinions 5235) --
Malpractice action brought on claim of ineffective assistance of counsel also
asserted in direct appeal. Statute of limitations for filing malpractice action
began to run as of the day the appellate brief was filed. Fact issue was lost on
appeal did not bar malpractice action under the doctrine of res judicata,
since malpractice was not a claim which could have been litigated in the appeal.
Nor did pursuit of a postconviction action prevent simultaneous litigation of a
Return to top of page
Unauthorized practice and other issues
Cuyahoga County Bar Association v. Spurlock,
96 Ohio St. 3d 18,
2002-Ohio-2580 -- Non lawyers may not exploit next friend
status to prepare and file documents. A next friend must provide an adequate
explanation why the real party in interest can not appear on their own behalf
and must be truly dedicated to the best interests of that person. Also see
Whitmore v. Arkansas (1990), 495 U.S. 149, 163-165.
In re Lawson (1994), 98 Ohio App. 3d 456
-- A child welfare agency may only appear in court through counsel. Thus a
continuance request made by an attending non-attorney caseworker was not proper
and "cannot be sanctioned."
Hill v. Hill (1993), 88 Ohio App. 3d 447
-- Non-attorney representative of support enforcement agency should not have
been permitted to make a recommendation to the court as to what the agency
Washington County Department of Human Services
v. Rutter (1995), 100 Ohio App. 3d 32 -- Statute allowing non-lawyer
employee of human services department to sue in small claims court and to appear
in small claims court on behalf of the department is unconstitutional. At p. 37:
"The General Assembly has no authority to authorize lay persons to appear before
the courts of this state in a representative capacity for another entity and the
Ohio Supreme Court has taken no action to sanction such conduct."
State v. Brown (1995), 108 Ohio App. 3d
489 -- Disbarred attorney could be convicted of theft for having continued to
practice law. R.C. 4705.07, which proscribes falsely representing oneself to be
an attorney, is not a specific statute precluding prosecution under the general
Return to top of page
Return to Index