Upcoming Supreme Court oral arguments include an attorney discipline case related to OSU football sanctions.

Upcoming Supreme Court oral arguments include an attorney discipline case related to OSU football sanctions.

The cases scheduled for oral argument before the Supreme Court of Ohio next week include Disciplinary Counsel v. Cicero, in which the court will review a recommendation that the license of Columbus attorney Christopher Cicero be suspended for improperly disclosing confidential information Cicero received from a prospective client to former OSU football coach Jim Tressel.

The court’s Office of Public Information today released oral argument previews summarizing the seven cases that will be argued during the September 11-12 session. There are four cases on the docket Tuesday and three cases Wednesday. Arguments begin at 9 a.m. in the Thomas J. Moyer Ohio Judicial Center and can be viewed live online on the court’s home page and the OhioChannel.org. The arguments are also carried live on local public broadcasting stations. Check here for local listings.

In the Cicero case, scheduled as the second argument to be heard on Tuesday, the court’s Board of Commissioners on Grievances & Discipline has recommended that Cicero be suspended from practice for six months  based on a finding that he improperly disclosed to Tressel information Cicero had received through conversations with Columbus tattoo parlor operator Ed Rife. Specifically, the board found that Rife was a prospective client when he  told Cicero that championship rings and other memorabilia Rife had acquired from 2010 OSU football players had been seized during a federal drug raid.  Cicero disputes the board’s findings and recommended sanction.  He asserts that he never intended to serve as Rife’s attorney, and did not receive the information he passed on through emails to Tressel in the context of a confidential attorney-client relationship.

In the first case to be argued on Wednesday, the court will consider an appeal by the city of Reynoldsburg from a ruling of the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio (PUCO).  The challenged ruling held that a provision included in a utility rate and service tariff  approved by the PUCO in 1992 bars Reynoldsburg from enforcing a 2005 city ordinance requiring utility companies, including Columbus Southern Power Company, to pay the costs of moving above-ground power lines located in a public right-of-way into a city-provided underground duct.

Also on the docket next week:

• A Lorain County case questioning whether a prosecutor’s failure to include in an indictment the name of a specific drug a defendant is accused of trafficking renders the indictment invalid.
• Two cases in which the disciplinary board has recommended that attorneys be permanently disbarred for stealing from a client and making personal use of client funds on deposit in a law office trust account.
• A discipline case in which a Cleveland trial lawyer faces suspension for making statements that recklessly impugned the integrity of a judge who made rulings unfavorable to the lawyer’s client.
• A case in which  the disciplinary board has recommended a two-year suspension for a Cleveland attorney who withheld taxes from his employees’ pay but failed to remit those funds to the government over  a three-year period.