The Ohio Board of Professional Conduct has issued four advisory opinions, including two new opinions that address the application of the Code of Judicial Conduct to mayor’s courts magistrates and a lawyer’s responsibilities when responding to a subpoena for a former client’s file. Two opinions previously issued under the former Code of Professional Responsibility or Code of Judicial Conduct have been revised and reissued.

Advisory Opinion 2023-03 concludes that a mayor’s court magistrate is not subject to the Code of Judicial Conduct and may seek and hold another public office and accept a leadership position within a political party. The opinion reminds mayor’s courts magistrates that their professional conduct is still subject to the Rules of Professional Conduct.

Advisory Opinion 2023-04 advises that a lawyer in receipt of a subpoena for a former client’s file must promptly notify the client and seek the client’s informed consent to disclose information contained in the file. If the client wishes to challenge the subpoena, the lawyer must assert all reasonable claims on his or her behalf. If the former client cannot be found, the lawyer must take steps to limit the disclosure including serving objections or filing a motion to quash the subpoena.

Advisory Opinion 2023-05 observes that a judge’s disqualification is not mandated by the Code of Judicial Conduct when a lawyer employed by, associated with, or in partnership with the judge’s spouse makes an appearance before the judge. However, the board advises that disqualification is appropriate if the spouse’s affiliation may cause the judge’s impartiality to be reasonably questioned or an interest of the spouse may be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding. This opinion replaces Adv. Op. 1991-08.

Advisory Opinion 2023-06 advises that a Child Support Enforcement Agency (CSEA) staff attorney may not represent the state in any action involving a matter in which that attorney had previously issued orders as a CSEA administrative hearing officer without the informed consent, confirmed in writing, of all parties. The board cautions that other law may prohibit the representation even with the consent of all parties. This opinion replaces Adv. Op. 2006-06.