Sholar v. Sholar
Citations
- 2025 Ohio 4883
Syllabus
The trial court did not err in granting appellee's motion for disqualification of appellant's counsel under Prof.Cond.R. 3.7(a). Appellant did not respond to appellee's motion within the time provided by Civ.R. 6(C)(1). The uncontested facts stated in appellee's affidavit accompanying her motion provided sufficient support for the trial court's conclusion that appellant's counsel was a necessary witness and that none of the exceptions of Rule 3.7(a) applied. The trial did not abuse its discretion in granting the motion without a hearing and disqualifying appellant's counsel. Judgment affirmed.
Judges: Huffman
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.