Skip to main content

Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Young

OhioJuly 12, 2000No. 1999-2308Cited 4 times
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Judge(s)
Douglas, J.
Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Published
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
Disciplinary action by Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Claim Types

Discrimination

Outcome

Attorney Young was suspended from practice for two years (with second year stayed) and placed on one-year probation for engaging in discriminatory conduct prohibited by law based on protected characteristics including race, color, religion, age, gender, sexual orientation, national origin, marital status, and disability in violation of DR 1-102(B).

Excerpt

Attorneys at law—Misconduct—Two-year suspension with second year of suspension stayed with one-year probation—Engaging, in a professional capacity, in conduct involving discrimination prohibited by law because of race, color, religion, age, gender, sexual orientation, national origin, marital status, or disability—Finding of discrimination by the Ohio Civil Rights Commission, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, or a state or federal court is not a prerequisite to the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline finding that an attorney violated DR 1-102(B).

What This Ruling Means

# Cincinnati Bar Association v. Young - Plain English Summary **What Happened:** Attorney Young faced disciplinary charges from the Cincinnati Bar Association for engaging in discriminatory conduct. The case involved allegations that Young discriminated against someone based on protected characteristics such as race, color, religion, age, gender, sexual orientation, national origin, marital status, or disability while performing legal work. **What the Court Decided:** The disciplinary board found Young guilty of professional misconduct. Young was suspended from practicing law for two years, though the second year was suspended (meaning it wouldn't take effect if Young followed the rules). Young was also placed on one-year probation and required to comply with conduct standards. **Why This Matters for Workers:** This ruling is significant because it shows that attorneys can face serious consequences for discrimination—even without a separate finding from another agency like the EEOC or state civil rights commission. Workers dealing with lawyers should know that the legal profession has strict anti-discrimination rules. If an attorney treats you unfairly based on protected characteristics, you can report the conduct to bar associations, which have the power to suspend or remove attorneys from practice.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

Browse Related

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.