Court Opinion

ID: 9875075
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-26 22:23:30.609731+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:46:56.574286
License: Public Domain

TYACK, P.J., concurring.
  

   {¶ 19} This case presents, once again, an ethical problem which the office of the Ohio Attorney General needs to resolve. At
   one point in this litigation, attorneys in the office argued to a common pleas court that the common pleas court had no jurisdiction over the issues. At a different point in time, attorneys in the office argued in the Court of Claims of Ohio that the Court of Claims had no jurisdiction and only a common pleas court had jurisdiction. It is not ethical for members of the same law firm to argue two such conflicting theories about jurisdiction and to switch the theory to whatever benefits the office in a particular court. The assertion that one part of the office does not communicate with another part of the office is no excuse.
  

   {¶ 20} As to the merits of this case, the majority decision is correct, so I join in that decision.