Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Selnick
Case Details
- Judge(s)
- Resnick
- Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
- Published
- Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
- Disciplinary proceeding by Cincinnati Bar Association resulting in permanent disbarment
Related Laws
No specific laws identified for this ruling.
Outcome
The Ohio Bar Association sought disciplinary action against attorney Selnick for multiple violations of professional conduct rules, resulting in permanent disbarment due to extensive misconduct including neglect, dishonesty, and unfitness to practice law.
Excerpt
Attorneys at law—Misconduct—Permanent disbarment—Neglect of an entrusted legal matter—Failing to seek lawful objectives of client—Failing to carry out contract of employment—Prejudicing or damaging client during course of professional relationship—Failing to render appropriate accounts to client—Failing to promptly pay or deliver to client funds, securities, or other property client is entitled to receive—Engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation—Failing to comply with known local customs of courtesy or practice of the bar or particular tribunal without giving notice—Engaging in undignified or discourteous conduct which is degrading to a tribunal—Intentionally or habitually violating any established rule of procedure or of evidence—Engaging in conduct adversely reflecting on fitness to practice law—Handling a legal matter which attorney knows or should know he is not competent to handle—Engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice.
What This Ruling Means
This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.
Similar Rulings
Workers' compensation—Temporary-total-disability compensation—R.C. 4123.56—Employee who had already been terminated for violation of employment policies before his shoulder surgery was not "unable to work" as "direct result of an impairment arising from an injury or occupational disease" under plain language of R.C. 4123.56(F) and thus was not entitled to receive temporary-total-disability compensation—Court of appeals' judgment reversed and writ granted.
Quo warranto—Mandamus—Appellants failed to challenge court of appeals' judgment dismissing their quo warranto claim on basis of laches and therefore waived that argument—Court of appeals' determination that appellants could not establish entitlement to city-council offices or that appellees were unlawfully holding the positions affirmed—Court of appeals' denial of request for writ of mandamus ordering continued payment of salaries and benefits as moot affirmed.
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.