Source: http://ohiolawinfo.blogspot.com/2005_12_04_archive.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 11:02:25+00:00

Document:
IT IS ORDERED by the court that the motions are denied.
2005-2008. State ex rel. Campbell v. Ruehlman.
2005-2229. State ex rel. Pamer v. Slaby.
2005-1562. Natl. City Bank v. Wilkins.
to the regular docket under S.Ct.Prac.R. XIV(6).
with case Nos. 2005-1563, 2005-1564, 2005-1565, and 2005-1566, Natl.
2005-1563. Natl. City Bank v. Wilkins.
Natl. City Bank v. Wilkins.
2005-1564. Natl. City Bank v. Wilkins.
with case Nos. 2005-1562, 2005-1563, 2005-1565, and 2005-1566, Natl.
2005-1565. Natl. City Bank v. Wilkins.
with case Nos. 2005-1562, 2005-1563, 2005-1564, and 2005-1566, Natl.
2005-1566. Natl. City Bank v. Wilkins.
with case Nos. 2005-1562, 2005-1563, 2005-1564, and 2005-1565, Natl.
2005-2116. State ex rel. Ward v. Dorman Prod.
Franklin App. No. 05AP-28, 2005-Ohio-5425.
2005-2133. State ex rel. Englemon v. Queen City Barrel Co.
Franklin App. No. 05AP-46, 2005-Ohio-5651.
2005-2135. State ex rel. Lange v. Indus. Comm.
Franklin App. No. 04AP-1330, 2005-Ohio-5487.
post-conviction relief before the courts of this state have been exhausted.
2005-0293. Glidden Co. v. Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co.
IT IS ORDERED by the court that the motions are granted.
SYLLABUS: A lawyer may not advertise legal services with coupons for free consultation or dollars off the cost of legal services. Advertising legal services with fee coupons is a characterization of the fees as “discount” or “special” and does not comply with DR 2-101(A)(5). Although a lawyer may not use fee coupons, a lawyer may advertise information regarding fees and charges as set forth in DR 2-101(E)(1), if presented in compliance with DR 2-101(B). Because DR 2-101(E)(1)(a) permits advertisement of fee information regarding an initial consultation, a lawyer may state in an advertisement whether an initial consultation is free. Prohibiting the use of fee coupons in lawyer advertising does not interfere with a lawyer’s exercise of independent professional judgment in setting fees for legal services at a rate that is reasonable and not excessive under the factors set forth in DR 2-106(B).
SYLLABUS: An attorney does not violate the ethical duty to preserve a client’s funds under DR 9-102(A) and the ethical duty to promptly deliver funds to a client under DR 9-102(B)(4) by reporting “unclaimed funds” pursuant to R.C. Chapter 169, so long as the attorney has diligently tried to contact the client at the last known address and the client’s whereabouts are unknown.
granted and the motion for appointment of counsel is denied.
IT IS ORDERED by the court that the motion to strike is denied.
of jurisdiction within thirty days from the date of this entry.
2005-0879. State ex rel. Boone v. Indus. Comm.
The Board of Commissioners of the Clients’ Security Fund of Ohio (CSF) awarded $160,778 to 20 victims of attorney theft at its meeting on Friday, Dec. 2, 2005. Ten former or suspended Ohio attorneys were found to have misappropriated client funds.
The CSF was created in 1985 by the Supreme Court of Ohio to reimburse victims of attorney theft, embezzlement or misappropriation. The CSF is not taxpayer funded, but funded entirely by registration fees paid by every Ohio attorney. Ohio has more than 40,000 attorneys engaged in the active practice of law. Less than one tenth of one percent (1%) of those attorneys is involved in CSF claims.
Law clients who believe they have sustained financial losses resulting from attorney theft, embezzlement or misappropriation should contact the CSF by calling 614-387-9390 or 1-800-231-1680 toll free in Ohio.
The CSF Board of Commissioners reimbursed $600 to a client of former Brown County attorney Edward L. Harp after finding that he accepted fees but failed to provide the services requested. Mr. Harp was suspended from the practice of law in Ohio on March 11, 2004. On Sept. 2, 2004, Mr. Harp surrendered his license to practice law in Ohio, with discipline pending.
Former clients of three Cuyahoga County attorneys were reimbursed by the Clients’ Security Fund as a result of the attorneys’ failure to provide the services requested. Two clients of attorney Michael F. Dadisman were reimbursed $46,233 in funds determined to have been converted by Mr. Dadisman. Mr. Dadisman was suspended from the practice of law in Ohio in July 2004.
A client of former attorney Timothy M. Bowman, also of Cuyahoga County, was reimbursed $200 paid to Mr. Bowman for services that he failed to provide. Mr. Bowman resigned from the practice of law in Ohio, with discipline pending, on Nov. 14, 2003.
A former client of suspended attorney Michael L. King was reimbursed $350 as a result of his failure to provide the services requested. Mr. King was indefinitely suspended from the practice of law in Ohio on Aug. 17, 2005.
The CSF Board of Commissioners determined that clients of three Franklin County attorneys were eligible for reimbursement from the CSF. A former client of suspended Franklin County attorney Perry R. Silverman was reimbursed $75,000 as a result of Mr. Silverman’s failure to release or otherwise account for client funds. Mr. Silverman was suspended from the practice of law in Ohio by the Supreme Court of Ohio on May 10, 2004.
Two former clients of suspended attorney Cynthia Harris, also of Franklin County, were reimbursed a total of $3,140 in legal fees paid to Ms. Harris for services that she failed to provide. Ms. Harris was suspended on April 8, 2005, for her failure to complete required hours of continuing legal education. A former client of Scott W. Spencer was reimbursed $1,052 as a result of Mr. Spencer’s failure to provide the services requested. Mr. Spencer resigned from the practice of law in Ohio, with discipline pending, on July 15, 2003.
Nine clients of former Mahoning County attorney Mark S. Colucci were reimbursed a total of $22,703 as a result of Mr. Colucci’s failure to provide the services requested and his failure to account for client funds. Mr. Colucci resigned from the practice of law in Ohio, with discipline pending, on Dec. 2, 2004.
A former client of Summit County attorney Shirley M. Jones was reimbursed $9,000 as a result of Ms. Jones’ improper receipt of fees from an estate. Ms. Jones was permanently disbarred from the practice of law in Ohio on Nov. 17, 2004.
A former client of suspended Trumbull County attorney J. Walter Dragelevich received $2,500 in reimbursement of legal fees paid to Mr. Dragelevich for services he failed to provide. Mr. Dragelevich was indefinitely suspended from the practice of law in Ohio on Nov. 2, 2005.
The list is 128 pages long.
IT IS ORDERED by the court, sua sponte, that the writ is allowed.
Allowing the writ means only that a return is ordered. See Reed v.
Kinkela (1998), 84 Ohio St. 3d 1427, 702 N.E.2d 903.
presence before the court is not required.
The Ohio Department of Taxation (ODT) has issued four information releases dealing with various aspects of the Commercial Activity Tax (CAT).
CAT 2005-18 - a draft rule that discusses temporary motor fuel exemptions from the CAT that were contained in H.B. 66, the FY 2006-2007 biennium budget bill. The release provides guidance to refineries, terminals and motor fuel dealers.
CAT 2005-06 - the fourth version of the draft release detailing situsing rules for certain services. It provides guidance for 50 services, including examples, and invites public comment.
CAT 2005-16 - concerns the determination of common owners and joint ventures. It provides examples to clarify the concepts contained in information release CAT 2005-05, that deals with common owners and joint ventures.
CAT 2005-05 - the third version of this release dealing with common owners and joint ventures. It is a draft rule that defines the test by which for consolidated elected and combined taxpayer groups are required to file as one owner.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.