Archive
 
Video Library
Broadcast
 
Broadcast ScheduleChannel LocatorAffiliatesDaily Streaming Schedule
About
 
About the Ohio ChannelFrequently Asked QuestionsContact UsJob OpportunitiesSite RequirementsMedia Information
 
 
A SERVICE OF OHIO'S PUBLIC BROADCASTING STATIONS
A SERVICE OF OHIO'S PUBLIC BROADCASTING STATIONS
ARCHIVEBROADCASTABOUT
Total Views 88,099,460
Total Views 88,099,460
Broadcast Schedule Channel Locator Affiliates Daily Streaming Schedule
 
 
About The Ohio Channel Frequently Asked Questions Contact Us Job Opportunities Site Requirements Media Information
 
 
 
Supreme Court of Ohio - Case No. 2014-1744 Disciplinary Counsel v. Raymond Thomas Lee III Expand
 
 
May 5, 2015
05-05-2015
2,012 Views
Audio Only Share Download
 
Start At    sec      End At    sec
 
Link
Embed Code
Available Versions
Download 360p VideoDownload 480p VideoDownload 720p VideoDownload 1080p VideoDownload Audio (mp3)
 
 
To download a video: right-click on the version you'd like to save, then choose "Save Link As..." and save to your desktop.
 
Collections
Supreme Court of Ohio
 
Description
Attorney Discipline

Disciplinary Counsel v. Raymond T. Lee III, Case No. 2014-1744

Franklin County

In late 2014, the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline recommended that attorney Raymond T. Lee III of Dublin, Ohio, be indefinitely suspended from practicing law in the state. (The state attorney disciplinary board is now called the Board of Professional Conduct.)

The board found that Lee had established an attorney-client relationship with a teacher who had been a member of a union for which Lee handled disciplinary and other legal matters. As the teacher's attorney, Lee didn't act on her behalf and failed to communicate with her, the board determined. The board also concluded that Lee wasn't cooperative in the disciplinary proceedings, according to its report to the Ohio Supreme Court.

Lee has been suspended four times for failing to register with the Ohio Supreme Court. In December 2010, he was suspended from practicing law because he didn't complete his continuing education requirements, and he has not been reinstated.
Related Links
Case Information For Case #2014-1744
Oral Argument Preview For Case #2014-1744
 
 
 
 
Copyright Disclaimer Terms of Use Contact Us Support
 
 
© 2025 The Ohio Channel / ideastream.
All Rights Reserved.