Can an Ohio judge accept an honorary country club membership, a round of golf, or a ticket to a sports event, and does the judge have to report it?
Apply this to your situation
This page answers the general question as of 1998. Ezel answers yours: whether it's allowed on your facts, under the current Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct, with citations.
Plain-English summary
The Board analyzed three judicial gifts under two authorities. Under the Ohio Code of Judicial Conduct, Canon 2(C)(5) barred a judge from accepting gifts unless the gift fell within one of eight exceptions. The Board concluded that an honorary country club membership was not "ordinary social hospitality" under Canon 2(C)(5)(c) because it conferred continuous year-round benefits, so it was acceptable only under the catchall Canon 2(C)(5)(h), meaning the donor club could not be a party or interest that had come or was likely to come before the judge; if its value exceeded $150 it had to be reported on the judge's annual activity compensation report, and under Canon 4(B) a judge could not join a club that practiced invidious discrimination.
For a round of golf or a sports ticket from an attorney, the Board concluded these were "ordinary social hospitality" a judge could accept under Canon 2(C)(5)(c) without reporting on the activity compensation report, though they were reportable on the annual Financial Disclosure Statement if value exceeded $75.
Under Ohio Ethics Law, R.C. 102.03(E), the Board concluded the same gifts were acceptable only if the donor club, or the attorney offering golf or tickets, was not interested in matters before, regulated by, or doing business with the judge or the court; an attorney with a case currently pending before the judge was treated as so interested. Under R.C. 102.02(A)(7), gifts over $75 from one donor had to be disclosed, with multiple gifts from one donor totaled for the year.
Currency note
The Ohio Board flags this opinion as a "Former CJC Opinion," meaning it provides advice under the former Ohio Code of Judicial Conduct, which was superseded by the Ohio Code of Judicial Conduct effective March 1, 2009.
This opinion issued in 1998, before that revision and before the Ohio profession's broader Ethics 2000 era changes. Subsequent rule amendments or later opinions may have changed the analysis, including the canon numbering and the gift-reporting thresholds described here. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance. Verify against the current Ohio Code of Judicial Conduct before relying on any specific rule, threshold, or reporting requirement mentioned here.
Common questions
Q: Could an Ohio judge accept an honorary country club membership?
A: Under this opinion, yes, but only under Canon 2(C)(5)(h): the donor club could not be a party or interest that had come or was likely to come before the judge, and the judge could not join a club that practiced invidious discrimination under Canon 4(B).
Q: Could a judge accept a round of golf or a sports ticket from an attorney?
A: The opinion concluded these were ordinary social hospitality acceptable under Canon 2(C)(5)(c), but not from an attorney who had a case currently pending before the judge or other interests before the judge.
Q: When did the judge have to report these gifts?
A: The opinion described two thresholds: gifts over $150 from one donor met the Code of Judicial Conduct reporting threshold, and gifts over $75 from one donor met the Ohio Ethics Law threshold, with multiple gifts from a single donor totaled for the year.
Background and rules framework
The opinion interprets the former Ohio Code of Judicial Conduct Canon 2(C)(5) (gift exceptions), Canon 2(D)(3) (reporting), and Canon 4(B) (membership in discriminatory organizations), alongside Ohio Ethics Law at R.C. 102.03(E) (accepting things of value) and R.C. 102.02(A)(7) (gift disclosure). The Board read the Code's "ordinary social hospitality" exception against the Reporter's Notes to the ABA Code of Judicial Conduct.
Citations and references
Rules of Professional Conduct:
- Former Ohio Code of Judicial Conduct Canon 2(C)(5)(c), Canon 2(C)(5)(h), Canon 2(D)(3), Canon 4(B)
Statutes:
- R.C. 102.03(D), (E), (F); R.C. 102.02(A)(7); R.C. 1.03; R.C. 2921.43(A)
Other opinions cited:
- Ohio Ethics Commission Op. 95-001 (1995): city council member and free stadium season tickets
- Ohio Ethics Commission Op. 96-003 (1996) and Op. 94-003 (1994): valuing and totaling gifts
- Ohio Bd. of Comm'rs on Grievances & Discipline Ops. 95-8 (1995), 95-4 (1995): improper influence analysis
See also
- Ohio BPC Op. 1998-008: Judge on Party Executive Committee or Board of Elections
- Ohio BPC Op. 1998-006: Judge Seeking Appointment as Prosecuting Attorney
Source
- Landing page: https://ohioadvop.org/advisory-opinion-index/
- Original PDF: https://www.ohioadvop.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Op-98-010.pdf
Original opinion text
Reproduced from the official source for research purposes. The linked source is authoritative.
The Supreme Court of Ohio
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ON GRIEVANCES AND DISCIPLINE
41 SOUTH HIGH STREET-SUITE 3370, COLUMBUS, OH 43215-6105
(614) 644-5800 FAX: (614) 644-5804
OFFICE OF SECRETARY
OPINION 98-10
Issued October 9, 1998
[Former CJC Opinion-provides advice under the former Ohio Code of Judicial Conduct which is
superseded by the Ohio Code of Judicial Conduct, eff. 3/1/2009.]
SYLLABUS: Gifts to judges are regulated under both the Ohio Code of Judicial
Conduct and Ohio Ethics Law. An honorary country club membership, a round of golf,
and a ticket to a sports event are acceptable gifts under both authorities only if certain
conditions are met.
Under Canon 2(C)(5)(h) of the Ohio Code of Judicial Conduct, a judge may accept an
honorary country club membership as a gift provided that the donor country club is not a
party who has come or is likely to come before the judge or whose interests have come or
are likely to come before the judge. Pursuant to Canon 2(C)(5)(h) and Canon 2(D)(3),
acceptance of an honorary country club membership with a value exceeding $150.00
should be reported as a gift on the annual Quasi-judicial or Extra-judicial Activity
Compensation Report Form for Judges. Under Canon 4(B), a judge may not hold
membership in a country club that practices invidious discrimination.
Under Ohio Ethics Law, R.C § 102.03(E), a judge may accept an honorary country club
membership provided the donor country club is not interested in matters before, regulated
by, or doing or seeking to do business with the judge or the court on which the judge
serves. Under R.C. § 102.02(A)(7), acceptance of an honorary country club membership
with a value of over $75.00 should be reported as a gift on the annual Financial
Disclosure Statement.
Under Canon 2(C)(5)(c) of the Ohio Code of Judicial Conduct, a judge may accept as
“ordinary social hospitality” an occasional round of golf or a ticket to a sports event from
an attorney. Acceptance of a round of golf or a ticket to a sports event is not reported on
the annual Quasi-judicial or Extra-judicial Activity Compensation Report Form for
Judges, but is reported under R.C. § 102.02(A)(7) as a gift on the annual Financial
Disclosure Statement if the value exceeds $75.00.
Under Ohio Ethics Law, R.C § 102.03(E), a judge may accept a round of golf or a ticket
to a sports event from an attorney, provided the attorney does not have a case currently
pending before the judge or other interests that are before the judge. Under R.C. §
102.02(A)(7), acceptance of a round of golf or a ticket to a sports event with a value
exceeding $75.00 should be reported as a gift on the annual Financial Disclosure
Statement.
In reporting gifts, a judge should value each gift at or above its minimum fair market
value. The value of multiple gifts from one donor is to be totaled for the year. If the total
value of the gifts from one donor exceeds $150 then the reporting threshold within the
Ohio Code of Judicial Conduct is met. If the total value of the gifts from one donor
exceeds $75.00 then the reporting threshold within Ohio Ethics Law is met.
Opinion: This opinion addresses the following questions regarding gifts to judges.
Is it proper for a judge to accept an honorary membership to a country club
and if so must the judge report it as a gift?
Is it proper for a judge to accept a round of golf or a ticket to a sports event
from an attorney and if so must the judge report it as a gift?
What is the proper method of determining the value of gifts for reporting
purposes?
Introduction
Both the Ohio Code of Judicial Conduct and Ohio Ethics Law regulate gifts to judges and
both have reporting requirements. These authorities guide a judge in determining what
gifts may be accepted and what gifts must be reported.
The Ohio Code of Judicial Conduct regulates gifts by prohibiting a judge from accepting
gifts from anyone, unless the gifts fall within one of the eight categories of exceptions in
Canon 2(C)(5)(a) through (h).
Canon 2(C)(5) A judge shall not accept and shall urge members of the
judge’s family residing in the judge’s household not to accept a gift,
bequest, favor, or loan from anyone except for:
(a) A gift incident to a public testimonial, books, tapes and other resource
materials supplied by publishers on a complimentary basis for official
use, or an invitation to the judge and the judge’s spouse or guest to
attend a bar-related function or an activity devoted to the improvement
of the law, the legal system, or the administration of justice;
(b) A gift, award, or benefit incident to the business, profession, or other
separate activity of a spouse or other family member of a judge
residing in the judge’s household, including gifts, awards, and benefits
for the use of both the spouse or other family member and the judge
(as spouse or family member), provided the gift, award, or benefit
could not reasonably be perceived as intended to influence the judge in
the performance of judicial duties;
(c) Ordinary social hospitality;
(d) A gift from a relative or friend for a special occasion such as a
wedding, anniversary, or birthday if the gift is commensurate with the
occasion and the relationship;
(e) A gift, bequest, favor, or loan from a relative or close personal friend
whose appearance or interest in a case would in any event require
disqualification under Canon 3(E);
(f) A loan from a lending institution in its regular course of business on
the same terms generally available to persons who are not judges;
(g) A scholarship or fellowship awarded on the same terms and based on
the same criteria applied to other applicants; or
(h) Any other gift, bequest, favor, or loan, only if the donor is not a party
or other person who has come or is likely to come or whose interests
have come or are likely to come before the judge, and, if its value
exceeds one hundred fifty dollars, the judge reports it in the same
manner as the judge reports compensation in division (D) of this
canon.
Gifts accepted under Canon 2(C)(5)(h) and with a value of over $150.00 must be reported
under the Code of Judicial Conduct in the same manner as compensation is reported
under Canon 2(D)(3). The nature of the gift, the name of the donor, and the amount are
reported on the annual Quasi-judicial or Extra-judicial Activity Compensation Report
Form for Judges. Gifts accepted under Canon 2(C)(a) through (g) have no reporting
requirement under the Code of Judicial Conduct; however, many of these gifts will fall
within the reporting requirements of Ohio Ethics Law.
Ohio Ethics Law regulates gifts by prohibiting judges from accepting anything of value
that is of such a character as to manifest a substantial and improper influence upon the
judge.
R.C. 102.03(D) No public official or employee shall use or authorize the
use of the authority or influence of office or employment to secure
anything of value or the promise or offer of anything of value that is of
such a character as to manifest a substantial and improper influence upon
the public official or employee with respect to that person’s duties.
(E) No public official or employee shall solicit or accept anything of value
that is of such a character as to manifest a substantial and improper
influence upon the public official or employee with respect to that
person’ s duties.
(F) No person shall promise or give to a public official or employee
anything of value that is of such a character as to manifest a substantial
and improper influence upon the public official or employee with
respect to that person’s duties.
R.C. § 102.02 (A)(7) requires that a judge file a statement disclosing “the source of each
gift of over seventy-five dollars . . . received by the person in the person’s own name or
by any other person for the person’s use or benefit during the preceding calendar year,
except gifts received by will or by virtue of section 2105.06 of the Revised Code, or
received from spouses, parents, grandparents, children, grandchildren, siblings, nephews,
nieces, uncles, aunts, brothers-in-law, sisters-in-law, sons-in-law, daughters-in-law,
fathers-in-law, mothers-in-law, or any person to whom the person filing the statement
stands in loco parentis, or received by way of distribution from any inter vivos or
testamentary trust established by a spouse or by an ancestor.” The source of the gift must
be reported on the annual Financial Disclosure Statement, but not the nature of the gift.
In addition, Ohio Ethics Law prohibits a judge from accepting supplemental
compensation for performing the duties of the judicial employment.
R.C. 2921.43(A) No public servant shall knowingly solicit or accept and
no person shall knowingly promise or give to a public servant either of the
following:
(1) Any compensation other than as allowed by divisions (G), (H),
and (I) of section 102.03 of the Revised Code or other
provisions of law, to perform his [her] official duties, to
perform any other act or service in the public servant’s public
capacity, for the general performance of the duties of the public
servant’s public office or public employment, or as a
supplement to the public servant’s public compensation;
(2) Additional or greater fees or costs than are allowed by law to
perform his [her] official duties.
A gift that is intended as supplemental compensation for performing judicial duties would
be prohibited. However, that issue is not raised with regard to the questions presented
and is not further addressed in this opinion.
Question One
Is it proper for a judge to accept an honorary membership to a country club
and if so must the judge report it as a gift?
The answer to the question requires analysis under both the Ohio Code of Judicial
Conduct and Ohio Ethics Law. Is an honorary membership to a country club a prohibited
gift under the Ohio Code of Judicial Conduct? Is the membership prohibited under Ohio
Ethics Law?
The precise benefits of an honorary country club membership need not be scrutinized.
An honorary membership to a country club allows a judge access to a private country
club. Whether the membership provides only dining privileges at the club, or whether it
also includes full or limited golf, tennis, swimming, or other social or recreational
privileges is superfluous. Honorary admittance to a country club is in and of itself a
generous bestowal upon the recipient. It is a valuable gift.
To be an acceptable gift under the Ohio Code of Judicial Conduct, an honorary country
club membership must fall within one of the eight permitted categories in Canon
2(C)(5)(a) through (h). One of the categories, Canon 2(C)(5)(c), permits a judge to
accept “ordinary social hospitality.”
Ordinary social hospitality is not defined within the Code of Judicial Conduct, but in
common usage, “hospitality” means a “[c]ordial reception of guests” or “[a]n instance of
being hospitable.” Webster’s II New Riverside University Dictionary 593 (1984). To be
“hospitable” means to be “[c]ordial and generous to guests.” Id.
In this Board’s view an honorary membership in a country club is not “ordinary social
hospitality.” A country club membership is more than “ordinary social hospitality.” It is
more than an “instance of being hospitable.” Membership in a country club provides
continuous benefits throughout the year.
An honorary country club membership does not fit within any of the other permitted
categories identified in (a) through (g). Therefore, it is an unacceptable gift unless it fits
within the “catchall” category (h). Under Canon 2(C)(5)(h), gifts that fall outside
categories (a) through (g) are acceptable if the gift does not come from a donor who is a
party or a person who has come or is likely to come or whose interests have come or are
likely to come before the judge.
When considering the acceptance of gifts under Canon 2(C)(5)(h) a judge should use both
caution and common sense. A judge should not accept a Canon (2)(C)(5)(h) gift from a
current or former litigant or from an attorney who currently represents clients in matters
before the judge, or from any other person whose interests have come or are likely to
come before the judge. Acceptance of a Canon (2)(C)(5)(h) gift from such persons would
not preserve the integrity and independence of the judiciary as required under Canon 1
and would not promote public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary
as required under Canon 2. However, a vague possibility that a donor of a gift might at
some future point in time come before a judge is not a sufficient reason to restrict
acceptance of an otherwise acceptable gift. If a judge accepts a gift and the donor later
becomes a litigant, the judge would need to consider disqualification under Canon 3(E)
from presiding over the case to avoid an appearance of partiality and impropriety.
In general, judges should be wary of gifts and should exercise prudence when
determining whether a gift is acceptable. There may be some gifts of such magnitude or
nature that acceptance by a judge would diminish the integrity of the judiciary. Any gift
which has the appearance of currying influence with a judge or which casts doubt upon a
judge’s integrity under Canon 1 or a judge’s independence under Canon 2 is inappropriate
for a judge to accept.
A judge should give careful consideration before accepting a gift from a partner or
associate of an attorney who has a case pending before the judge. If the judge knows or it
is obvious that the gift is being offered for the purpose of influencing the judge, then the
gift should not be accepted. If the gift is truly based on social hospitality and is not an
attempt to influence the case, then acceptance would not be improper. These are, in part,
subjective decisions which the judge must make prudently.
With some gifts, additional considerations may arise. As to a country club membership, a
judge, before accepting or joining, would need to assure himself or herself that the
organization does not practice invidious discrimination. Under Canon 4(B), “[a] judge
shall not hold membership in any organization that practices invidious discrimination on
the basis of race, gender, religion, or national origin.”
Thus, the Board advises that under Canon 2(C)(5)(h) of the Ohio Code of Judicial
Conduct, a judge may accept an honorary country club membership as a gift provided that
the donor country club is not a party who has come or is likely to come before the judge
or whose interests have come or are likely to come before the judge. Pursuant to Canon
2(C)(5)(h) and Canon 2(D)(3), acceptance of an honorary country club membership with
a value exceeding $150.00 should be reported as a gift on the annual Quasi-judicial or
Extra-judicial Activity Compensation Report Form for Judges. Under Canon 4(B), a
judge may not hold membership in a country club that practices invidious discrimination.
As to Ohio Ethics Law, the honorary country club membership would be prohibited if it is
considered to be “anything of value” that is of such a character as to manifest a
“substantial influence” and “improper influence” upon the judge with respect to the
judge’s duties. Acceptance is improper in the presence of all three variables: 1) a thing
of value, 2) substantial influence, and 3) improper influence. “Anything of value” is
broadly defined by R.C. § 1.03 to include, inter alia, money, goods and chattels, realty,
and every other thing of value. There is substantial influence if the thing of value is more
than de minimis. There is improper influence if the thing of value is from a party that is
interested in matters before, regulated by, or doing or seeking to business with the public
official’s or employee’s agency. See Ohio Sup.Ct, Bd of Comm’rs Griev. & Disc, Ops.
95-8 (1995), 95-4 (1995)
An honorary membership to a country club is a thing of value. Because it is more than de
minimis it is of such a character as to manifest a substantial influence. However, it is
assumed for purposes of this opinion that the country club is not interested in matters
before, regulated by, or doing or seeking to do business with the judge or the court on
which the judge serves. Thus, it is not considered to be such a character as to manifest an
improper influence.
Thus, the Board advises that under Ohio Ethics Law, R.C. § 102.03(E), a judge may
accept an honorary country club membership provided the donor country club is not
interested in matters before, regulated by, or doing or seeking to do business with the
judge or the court on which the judge serves. Under R.C. § 102.02(A)(7), acceptance of
an honorary country club membership with a value of over $75.00 should be reported as a
gift on the annual Financial Disclosure Statement.
Question Two
Is it proper for a judge to accept a round of golf or a ticket to a sports event
from an attorney and if so must the judge report it as a gift?
The answer to the question requires analysis under both the Ohio Code of Judicial
Conduct and Ohio Ethics law. Is a round of golf or a ticket to a sports event given by a
lawyer to a judge a prohibited gift under the Ohio Code of Judicial Conduct? Is a round
of golf or a ticket to a sports event from a lawyer to a judge prohibited under Ohio Ethics
Law?
To be an acceptable gift, under the Code of Judicial Conduct, a round of golf or a ticket to
a sports event must fall within one of the eight categories set forth in Canon 2(C)(5)(a)
through (h). One of these eight categories, Canon 2(C)(5)(c), permits a judge to accept
“ordinary social hospitality.” As stated in discussion of Question One, ordinary social
hospitality is not defined within the Code of Judicial Conduct, but in common usage,
“hospitality” means a “[c]ordial reception of guests” or “[a]n instance of being
hospitable” and to be “hospitable” means to be “[c]ordial and generous to guests.”
Webster’s II New Riverside University Dictionary, 593 (1984).
The Reporter’s Notes to the Code of Judicial Conduct explain the decision of the ABA
Special Committee on Standards of Judicial Conduct to include the standard of “ordinary
social hospitality” in the ABA Code of Judicial Conduct which was adopted by the House
of Delegates of the American Bar Association on August 16, 1972.
The “social hospitality” issue proved to be difficult. Should a judge be
precluded from going to a party given by a lawyer because the food and
drink is a gift or favor. Such questions could be continued in gradations of
gifts ranging from a cigar to a month’s visit at a mountain cabin. The
committee opted for a standard of “ordinary social hospitality.” The judge
should not be excluded form all social relationships with lawyers or
persons who are likely to be litigants in his court. The scope of
permissible hospitality will vary somewhat from place to place, depending
on local customs and practices. The Committee felt that there are common
sense limits and that the standard is understandable and defensible; for
example, the offer to a judge of a month at the mountain cabin of a lawyer
friend who practices in the judge’s court is clearly not ordinary social
hospitality, and acceptance is prohibited. Persons who think that the
“ordinary social hospitality” test sets too relaxed a standard should keep in
mind that the “impropriety and the appearance of impropriety” provisions
of Canon 2 are applicable to all of a judge’s activities. Each activity must
be judged in light of the surrounding circumstances.
E.Wayne Thode, Reporter’s Notes to the Code of Judicial Conduct 84-85 (1973).
Playing golf and attending sports events are popular social activities with widespread
appeal. Many sports enthusiasts as well as crowd watchers enjoy viewing a sport in the
company of others. Because of the popularity of these events, it is common for
individuals to extend invitations to play golf or to go to a game.
In the Board’s view, invitations to play golf or to attend a sports event are a gesture of
social hospitality that a judge may accept under Canon 2(C)(5)(c). Thus, the Board
advises that under Canon 2(C)(5)(c) of the Ohio Code of Judicial Conduct, a judge may
accept as “ordinary social hospitality” an occasional round of golf or a ticket to a sports
event from an attorney. Acceptance of a round of golf or a ticket to a sports event is not
reported on the annual Quasi-judicial or Extra-judicial Activity Compensation Report
Form for Judges, but is reported under R.C.§ 102.02(A)(7) as a gift on the annual
Financial Disclosure Statement if the value exceeds $75.00.
As to Ohio Ethics Law, a round of golf or a ticket to a sports event is prohibited if it is
considered “anything of value” that is of such a character as to manifest a “substantial
influence” and “improper influence” upon the judge with respect to the judge’s duties.
Acceptance is improper in the presence of all three variables: 1) a thing of value, 2)
substantial influence, and 3) improper influence. “Anything of value” is broadly defined
by R.C. § 1.03 to include, inter alia, money, goods and chattels, realty, and every other
thing of value. Substantial influence is present if the thing of value is more than de
minimis. Improper influence is present if the thing of value is from a party that is
interested in matters before, regulated by, or doing or seeking to business with the public
official’s or employee’s agency. See Ohio Sup.Ct, Bd of Comm’rs on Griev. & Disc,
Ops. 95-8 (1995), 95-4(1995).
Of related interest is Opinion 95-001 in which the Ohio Ethics Commission advised that
“[d]ivision (E) of Section 102.03 of the Revised Code prohibits a city council member
from accepting free season tickets from a professional athletic team that plays its games
in a stadium located within the city.” The tickets were considered a thing of value. The
season tickets were considered substantial not de minimis. The team was considered
interested in matters before the city council. The commission noted that the city council
has, through its power of ordinance, authority over the stadium; the mayor makes
appointments and the council approves the appointments to the board of the corporation
that operates the stadium; and the council regulates the operation of the stadium. See
Ohio Ethics Comm., Op. 95-001 (1995).
In this Board’s view, a round of golf and a ticket to a sports event are “things of value.”
The value of a round of golf or a ticket to a sports event in most instances would be
“substantial” not de minimis. An attorney who has a case currently pending before the
judge is considered interested in matters before the court on which the judge serves.
Therefore, if an offer to a judge comes from an attorney who has a case currently pending
before the judge or other interests that are before the judge, the offer would be of such a
character as to manifest improper influence. The offer would be acceptable from an
attorney who does not have a case currently pending before the judge or other interests
before the judge.
Thus, Board advises that under Ohio Ethics Law, R.C § 102.03(E), a judge may accept a
round of golf or a ticket to a sports event from an attorney, provided the attorney does not
have a case currently pending before the judge or other interests before the judge. Under
R.C. § 102.02(A)(7), acceptance of a round of golf or a ticket to a sports event with a
value exceeding $75.00 should be reported as a gift on the annual Financial Disclosure
Statement.
Question Three
What is the proper method of determining the value of gifts for reporting
purposes?
In reporting gifts, a judge should value each gift at or above its minimum fair market
value. See Ohio Ethics Comm’n, Op. 96-003 (1996). The value of multiple gifts from
one donor is to be totaled for the year. See Ohio Ethics Comm’n., Op. 94-003 (1994). If
the total value of the gifts from one donor exceeds $150 then the reporting requirement
within the Ohio Code of Judicial Conduct is met. If the total value of gifts from one
donor exceeds $75.00 then the reporting threshold within Ohio Ethics Law is met.
Advisory Opinions of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline are
informal, nonbinding opinions in response to prospective or hypothetical questions
regarding the application of the Supreme Court Rules for the Government of the
Bar of Ohio, the Supreme Court Rules for the Government of the Judiciary, the
Code of Professional Responsibility, the Code of Judicial Conduct, and the
Attorney’s Oath of Office.
Get today's answer for your situation
You just read a 1998 opinion on this question. Ezel checks the current Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct and answers your specific situation, with citations.
Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer cites the rules it relies on.