R.C. § 2305.28 provides qualified immunity from civil liability for OLAP staff (B and C) and for anyone who provides information to OLAP (D).

Prof. Cond. Rule 8.3 provides an exemption from the duty to report knowledge of ethical violations when that knowledge was obtained in the course of OLAP's work.

Qualified immunity in the Ohio Revised Code

§ 2305.28. Immunity of peer or professional standards review committee or counseling and assistance committee of a professional organization.

(A) As used in this section, "counseling and assistance committee" means a committee of a professional organization whose purpose is to render counseling and assistance to members of the profession whose personal or professional lives are or reasonably appear to be impaired by reason of substance abuse, chemical dependency, or mental illness.

(B) No member or employee of a peer review committee, professional standards review committee, or counseling and assistance committee of a state or local professional organization composed of doctors of chiropractic, doctors of veterinary medicine, attorneys at law, real estate brokers, architects, professional engineers, certified public accountants, public accountants, or registered nurses is liable to any person for any action taken or recommendation made within the scope of the functions of the committee, if the committee member or employee acts without malice and in the reasonable belief that the action or recommendation is warranted by the facts known to him after reasonable effort to obtain the facts of the matter as to which the action is taken or recommendation is made.

(C) Division (B) of this section also shall apply to any member or employee of a nonprofit corporation that is engaged in performing the functions of a peer review committee, professional standards review committee, or counseling and assistance committee of a state or local professional organization composed of doctors of chiropractic, doctors of veterinary medicine, attorneys at law, real estate brokers, architects, professional engineers, certified public accountants, public accountants, or registered nurses.

(D) No person who provides information to a peer review committee, professional standards review committee, or counseling and assistance committee of a state or local professional organization as described in division (B) of this section, to a nonprofit corporation as described in division (C) of this section, or to a member or employee of such a peer review committee, professional standards review committee, counseling and assistance committee, or nonprofit corporation, without malice and in the reasonable belief that the information is warranted by the facts known to him is liable in damages in a civil action as a result of providing that information.

HISTORY: 136 v S 288 (Eff 8-24-76); 141 v S 186 (Eff 7-24-86); 144 v S 84. Eff 7-1-92.

The Ohio Revised Code online.
Back to the top of the text.

Confidentiality in the Code of Professional Conduct

RULE 8.3: REPORTING PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT

(a) A lawyer who possesses unprivileged knowledge of a violation of the Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct that raises a question as to any lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer in other respects, shall inform a disciplinary authority empowered to investigate or act upon such a violation.

(b) A lawyer who possesses unprivileged knowledge that a judge has committed a violation of the Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct or applicable rules of judicial conduct shall inform the appropriate authority.

(c) Any information obtained by a member of a committee or subcommittee of a bar association, or by a member, employee, or agent of a nonprofit corporation established by a bar association, designed to assist lawyers with substance abuse or mental health problems, provided the information was obtained while the member, employee, or agent was performing duties as a member, employee, or agent of the committee, subcommittee, or nonprofit corporation, shall be privileged for all purposes under this rule.

Comment

[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.

[3] [RESERVED]

[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.

 

The Code of Professional Conduct online.
Back to the top of the text.