Secrets of 2000 Election Funding Revealed
News and Announcements from the Supreme Court of Ohio and Other Governmental Entities Within the Buckeye State.
Judge Stuart Friedman of Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court heard the arguments yesterday and stated that he would issue an opinion on February 18th. Whichever way this gets decided, expect it to eventually wind up in Columbus, and then probably Washington, D.C.
I posted earlier this week concerning a order from the Supreme Court of Ohio effectively lifting the ban on testimonial advertising for attorneys. Not much info was within that order. A story posted on the Gongwer News Service site stated that the decision to lift the rule came after professional sports agent and attorney Bret Adams of Columbus filed suit in U.S. District Court (2:04-CV-00264, S.D. Ohio) against Chief Justice Thomas Moyer and the six justices. Adams contended the state court's advertising rule deprived him of his right to commercial free speech. Adams wanted to run a print advertisement featuring an endorsement from athlete-coach Chris Spielman, now of the Columbus Destroyers.The federal lawsuit was dropped (on January 21, 2005 according to PACER) in view of the court's move to halt enforcement of the existing rule. The order by the court appears to effectively overturn the 1998 opinion of Disciplinary Counsel v. Shane, 81 Ohio St.3d 494, 692 N.E.2d 571 (Apr 22, 1998) (NO. 97-2642, 97-2643, 0074) in which the court agreed "with the conclusion of the panel that the four television commercials presented from April 1994 through early 1996, in which former clients praised the work of the firm, violated DR 2- 101(A)(3)."
DR 2-101. PUBLICITY.
(A) A lawyer shall not, on his or her own behalf or that of a partner, associate, or other lawyer affiliated with the lawyer or the lawyer's firm, use, or participate in the use of, any form of public communication, including direct mail solicitation, that:
(3) Contains any testimonial of past or present clients pertaining to the lawyer's capability;
Here is an order published yesterday by the Supreme Court of Ohio:
In re Enforcement of DR 2-101(A)(3) : ORDER
Whereas this court is vested with the authority to regulate the practice of law
in this state pursuant to Section 2(B), Article 4, Ohio Constitution,
It is hereby ordered that the Office of Disciplinary Counsel and all certified
grievance committees of local bar associations or the Ohio State Bar Association
shall not enforce any purported violation of DR 2-101(A)(3) until further order of