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Some portions of the collection may already be severely out of date, so please be cautious in your use of this material.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
 A prosecutor has the responsibility of a minister of justice and not simply that of an advocate. This responsibility carries with it specific obligations to see that the defendant is accorded justice and that guilt is decided upon the basis of sufficient evidence. Applicable law may require other measures by the prosecutor and knowing disregard of those obligations or a systematic abuse of prosecutorial discretion could constitute a violation of Rule 8.4. A prosecutor also is subject to other applicable rules such as Rules 3.6, 4.2, 4.3, 5.1, and 5.3.
 The exception in division (d) recognizes that a prosecutor may seek an appropriate order from the tribunal if disclosure of information to the defense could result in substantial harm to an individual or to the public interest.
 Division (e) is intended to limit the issuance of lawyer subpoenas in grand jury and other criminal proceedings to those situations in which there is a genuine need to intrude into the client-lawyer relationship.
Comparison to former Ohio Code of Professional Responsibility
Rule 3.8(a) corresponds to DR 7-103(A) (no charges without probable cause), and Rule 3.8(d) corresponds to DR 7-103(B) (disclose evidence that exonerates defendant or mitigates degree of offense or punishment).
EC 7-13 recognizes the distinctive role of prosecutors:
The responsibility of a public prosecutor differs from that of the usual advocate; his [her] duty is to seek justice, not merely to convict. This special duty exists because: (1) the prosecutor represents the sovereign and therefore should use restraint in the discretionary exercise of governmental powers, such as in the selection of cases to prosecute; (2) during trial the prosecutor is not only an advocate but he [she] also may make decisions normally made by an individual client, and those affecting the public interest should be fair to all; and (3) in our system of criminal justice the accused is to be given the benefit of all reasonable doubt.
Comparison to ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct
Rule 3.8 modifies Model Rule 3.8 as follows:
The introductory phrase of the rule is reworded to state a prohibition, consistent with other rules;
Division (a) is expanded to prohibit either the pursuit or prosecution of unsupported charges and, thus, would include grand jury proceedings;
Division (b) is deleted because ensuring that the defendant is advised about the right to counsel is a police and judicial function and because Rule 4.3 sets forth the duties of all lawyers in dealing with unrepresented persons;
Division (c) is deleted because of its breadth and potential adverse impact on defendants who seek continuances that would be beneficial to their case or who seek to participate in diversion programs;
Division (d) is modified to comport with Ohio law;
Division (f) is deleted because a prosecutor, like all lawyers, is subject to Rule 3.6.