Disciplinary Counsel v. Holmes & Kerr
Ohio Supreme Court
120 N.E.3d 820 (2018)

- Written by Sean Carroll, JD
Facts
Thomas Holmes and Ashleigh Kerr (defendant) were admitted to practice law in Ohio. The attorneys did not work for the same law firm or represent the same clients. The attorneys started a personal relationship and ultimately shared emails and other confidential client information with each other, including information protected by the work-product doctrine and the attorney-client privilege. Holmes’s law firm discovered this sharing of information and terminated his partnership. One of Holmes’s former partners filed a grievance against him. The Ohio Disciplinary Counsel (disciplinary counsel) (plaintiff) opened an investigation against Holmes and Kerr. Holmes and Kerr each agreed to certain stipulations, and each signed a consent-to-discipline agreement with the disciplinary counsel. The agreements included a stayed six-month suspension for the attorneys. The agreements were submitted to the Ohio Supreme Court for review.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Per curiam)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.