skip navigation

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Some portions of the collection may already be severely out of date, so please be cautious in your use of this material.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 - 8.3

[1] Self-regulation of the legal profession requires that a member of the profession initiate disciplinary investigation when the lawyer knows of a violation of the Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct involving that lawyer or another lawyer. A lawyer has a similar obligation with respect to judicial misconduct. An apparently isolated violation may indicate a pattern of misconduct that only a disciplinary investigation can uncover. Reporting a violation is especially important where the victim is unlikely to discover the offense.

[2] A report about misconduct is not required where it would involve the disclosure of privileged information. However, a lawyer should encourage a client to consent to disclosure where it would not substantially prejudice the client’s interests.


[4] The duty to report professional misconduct does not apply to a lawyer retained to represent a lawyer whose professional conduct is in question. Such a situation is governed by the rules applicable to the client-lawyer relationship. See Rule 1.6.

[5] Information about a lawyer’s or judge’s misconduct or fitness may be received by a lawyer in the course of that lawyer’s participation in an approved lawyers or judges assistance program. In that circumstance, providing for an exception to the reporting requirements of divisions (a) and (b) of this rule encourages lawyers and judges to seek treatment through such a program. Conversely, without such an exception, lawyers and judges may hesitate to seek assistance from these programs, which may then result in additional harm to their professional careers and additional injury to the welfare of clients and the public.

Comparison to former Ohio Code of Professional Responsibility

Rule 8.3 is comparable to DR 1-103 but differs in two respects. First, Rule 8.3 does not contain the strict reporting requirement of DR 1-103. DR 1-103 requires a lawyer to report all misconduct of which the lawyer has unprivileged knowledge. Rule 8.3 requires a lawyer to report misconduct only when the lawyer possesses unprivileged knowledge that raises a question as to any lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness in other respects. Second, Rule 8.3 requires a lawyer to self-report.

Comparison to ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct

Rule 8.3 is revised to comport more closely to DR 1-103. Division (a) is rewritten to require the self-reporting of disciplinary violations. In addition, the provisions of divisions (a) and (b) are broadened to require reporting of (1) any violation by a lawyer that raises a question regarding the lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness, and (2) any ethical violation by a judge. In both provisions, language is included to limit the reporting requirement to circumstances where a lawyer’s knowledge of a reportable violation is unprivileged.

Division (c), which deals with confidentiality of information regarding lawyers and judges participating in lawyers’ assistance programs, has been strengthened to reflect Ohio’s position that such information is not only confidential, but “shall be privileged for all purposes” under DR 1-103(C). The substance of DR 1-103(C) has been inserted in place of Model Rule 8.3(c).

In light of the substantive changes made in divisions (a) and (b), Comment [3] is no longer applicable and is stricken. Further, due to the substantive changes made to confidentiality of information regarding lawyers and judges participating in lawyers’ assistance programs, the last sentence in Comment [5] has been stricken.