skip navigation
search

End-of-life notice: American Legal Ethics Library

As of March 1, 2013, the Legal Information Institute is no longer maintaining the information in the American Legal Ethics Library. It is no longer possible for us to maintain it at a level of completeness and accuracy given its staffing needs. It is very possible that we will revive it at a future time. At this point, it is in need of a complete technological renovation and reworking of the "correspondent firm" model which successfully sustained it for many years.

Many people have contributed time and effort to the project over the years, and we would like to thank them. In particular, Roger Cramton and Peter Martin not only conceived ALEL but gave much of their own labor to it. We are also grateful to Brad Wendel for his editorial contributions, to Brian Toohey and all at Jones Day for their efforts, and to all of our correspondents and contributors. Thank you.

We regret any inconvenience.

Some portions of the collection may already be severely out of date, so please be cautious in your use of this material.


Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct

Comment - 8.1

[1] The duty imposed by this rule applies to a lawyer’s own admission or discipline as well as that of others. Thus, it is a separate professional offense for a lawyer to knowingly make a misrepresentation or omit a material fact in connection with a disciplinary investigation of the lawyer’s own conduct. Rule I of the Supreme Court Rules for the Government of the Bar of Ohio addresses the obligations of applicants for admission to the bar.

[2] This rule is subject to the provisions of the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 10 of the Ohio Constitution. A person relying on such a provision in response to a question, however, should do so openly and not use the right of nondisclosure as a justification for failure to comply with this rule.

[3] A lawyer representing an applicant for admission to the bar, or representing a lawyer who is the subject of a disciplinary inquiry or proceeding, is governed by the rules applicable to the client-lawyer relationship, including Rule 1.6 and, in some cases, Rule 3.3.

Comparison to former Ohio Code of Professional Responsibility

Rule 8.1 is comparable to DR 1-101.

Comparison to ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct

Rule 8.1 differs from Model Rule 8.1 in two respects.

Rule 8.1(a) is modified to strike the provision that would make the rule applicable to bar applicants. The constraints and obligations placed upon applicants for admission to the bar are more appropriately and distinctly addressed in Rule I of the Supreme Court Rules for the Government of the Bar of Ohio.

Rule 8.1(b) is modified for clarity. The clause, “fail to disclose a fact necessary to correct a misapprehension known by the person to have arisen in the matter,” is too unwieldy and creates a standard too difficult for explanation and comprehension. The elimination of that clause does not lessen the standard of candor expected of a lawyer in bar admission or disciplinary matters.