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Some portions of the collection may already be severely out of date, so please be cautious in your use of this material.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
Allocation of Authority between Client and Lawyer
 Division (a) confers upon the client the ultimate authority to determine the purposes to be served by legal representation, within the limits imposed by law and the lawyer’s professional obligations. The decisions specified in division (a), such as whether to settle a civil matter, must also be made by the client. See Rule 1.4(a)(1) for the lawyer’s duty to communicate with the client about such decisions. With respect to the means by which the client’s objectives are to be pursued, the lawyer shall consult with the client as required by Rule 1.4(a)(2) and may take such action as is impliedly authorized to carry out the representation.
 On occasion, however, a lawyer and a client may disagree about the means to be used to accomplish the client’s objectives. Clients normally defer to the special knowledge and skill of their lawyer with respect to the means to be used to accomplish their objectives, particularly with respect to technical, legal, and tactical matters. Conversely, lawyers usually defer to the client regarding such questions as the expense to be incurred and concern for third persons who might be adversely affected. Because of the varied nature of the matters about which a lawyer and client might disagree and because the actions in question may implicate the interests of a tribunal or other persons, this rule does not prescribe how such disagreements are to be resolved. Other law, however, may be applicable and should be consulted by the lawyer. The lawyer should also consult with the client and seek a mutually acceptable resolution of the disagreement. If such efforts are unavailing and the lawyer has a fundamental disagreement with the client, the lawyer may withdraw from the representation. See Rule 1.16(b)(4). Conversely, the client may resolve the disagreement by discharging the lawyer. See Rule 1.16(a)(3).
 At the outset of a representation, the client may authorize the lawyer to take specific action on the client’s behalf without further consultation. Absent a material change in circumstances and subject to Rule 1.4, a lawyer may rely on such an advance authorization. The client may, however, revoke such authority at any time.
 In a case in which the client appears to be suffering diminished capacity, the lawyer’s duty to abide by the client’s decisions is guided by reference to Rule 1.14.
[4A] Division (a) makes it clear that regardless of the nature of the representation the lawyer does not breach a duty owed to the client by maintaining a professional and civil attitude toward all persons involved in the legal process. Specifically, punctuality, the avoidance of offensive tactics, and the treating of all persons with courtesy are viewed as essential components of professionalism and civility, and their breach may not be required by the client as part of the representation.
Independence from Client’s Views or Activities
 A lawyer’s representation of a client, including representation by appointment, does not constitute an endorsement of the client’s political, economic, social, or moral views or activities. Legal representation should not be denied to people who are unable to afford legal services or whose cause is controversial or the subject of popular disapproval. By the same token, representing a client does not constitute approval of the client’s views or activities.
Agreements Limiting Scope of Representation
 Although division (c) affords the lawyer and client substantial latitude in defining the scope of the representation, any limitation must be reasonable under the circumstances. If, for example, a client’s objective is limited to securing general information about the law that the client needs in order to handle a common and typically uncomplicated legal problem, the lawyer and client may agree that the lawyer’s services will be limited to a brief telephone consultation. Such a limitation would not be reasonable if the time allotted was not sufficient to yield advice upon which the client could rely. In addition, the terms upon which representation is undertaken may exclude specific means that might otherwise be used to accomplish the client’s objectives. Such limitations may exclude actions that the client thinks are too costly or that the lawyer regards as repugnant or imprudent. Although an agreement for a limited representation does not exempt a lawyer from the duty to provide competent representation, the limitation is a factor to be considered when determining the legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness, and preparation reasonably necessary for the representation. See Rule 1.1.
[7A] Written confirmation of a limitation of a new or existing representation is preferred and may be any writing that is presented to the client that reflects the limitation, such as a letter or electronic transmission addressed to the client or a court order. A lawyer may create a form or checklist that specifies the scope of the client-lawyer relationship and the fees to be charged. An order of a court appointing a lawyer to represent a client is sufficient to confirm the scope of that representation.
 All agreements concerning a lawyer’s representation of a client must accord with the Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct and other law. See, e.g., Rules 1.1, 1.8 and 5.6.
Illegal, Fraudulent and Prohibited Transactions
 Division (d) prohibits a lawyer from knowingly counseling or assisting a client to commit an illegal act or fraud. This prohibition, however, does not preclude the lawyer from giving an honest opinion about the actual consequences that appear likely to result from a client’s conduct. Nor does the fact that a client uses advice in a course of action that is illegal or fraudulent of itself make a lawyer a party to the course of action. There is a critical distinction between presenting an analysis of legal aspects of questionable conduct and recommending the means by which an illegal act or fraud might be committed with impunity.
 When the client’s course of action has already begun and is continuing, the lawyer’s responsibility is especially delicate. The lawyer is required to avoid assisting the client, for example, by drafting or delivering documents that the lawyer knows are fraudulent or by suggesting how the wrongdoing might be concealed. A lawyer may not continue assisting a client in conduct that the lawyer originally supposed was legally permissible but then discovers is improper. See Rules 3.3(b) and 4.1(b).
 Where the client is a fiduciary, the lawyer may be charged with special obligations in dealings with a beneficiary.
 Division (d) applies whether or not the defrauded party is a party to the transaction. Hence, a lawyer must not participate in a transaction to effectuate illegal or fraudulent avoidance of tax liability. Division (d) does not preclude undertaking a criminal defense incident to a general retainer for legal services to a lawful enterprise. The last clause of division (d) recognizes that determining the validity or interpretation of a statute or regulation may require a course of action involving disobedience of the statute or regulation or of the interpretation placed upon it by governmental authorities.
 If a lawyer comes to know or reasonably should know that a client expects assistance not permitted by the Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct or other law or if the lawyer intends to act contrary to the client’s instructions, the lawyer must consult with the client regarding the limitations on the lawyer’s conduct. See Rule 1.4(a)(5).
Comparison to former Ohio Code of Professional Responsibility
Rule 1.2 replaces several provisions within Canon 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
The first sentence of Rule 1.2(a) generally corresponds to EC 7-7 and makes what previously was advisory into a rule. The second sentence of Rule 1.2(a) states explicitly what is implied by EC 7-7. The third sentence of Rule 1.2(a) corresponds generally to DR 7-101(A)(1) and EC 7-10. Rule 1.2(a)(1) and (2) correspond to several sentences in EC 7-7.
Rule 1.2(c) does not correspond to any Disciplinary Rule or Ethical Consideration.
The first sentence of Rule 1.2(d) corresponds to DR 7-102(A)(7). The second sentence of Rule 1.2(d) is similar to EC 7-4.
Rule 1.2(e) is the same as DR 7-105 except for the addition of the prohibition against threatening “professional misconduct allegations.”
Comparison to ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct
Rule 1.2(a) is modified slightly from the Model Rule 1.2(a) by the inclusion of the third sentence, which does not exist in the Model Rules.
Model Rule 1.2(b) has been moved to Comment  of Rule 1.2 because the provision is more appropriately addressed in a comment rather than a black-letter rule.
Rule 1.2(c) differs from Model Rule 1.2(c) in that it requires only that the limitation be communicated to the client, preferably in writing. The Model Rule requires that the client give informed consent to the limitation.
Rule 1.2(d) is similar to Model Rule 1.2(d) but differs in two aspects. The Model Rule language “criminal” was changed to “illegal” in Rule 1.2(d), and Model Rule 1.2(d) was split into two sentences in Rule 1.2(d).
Rule 1.2(e) does not exist in the Model Rules.