replaces several provisions within Canon 7 of the Code of Professional

Responsibility. The first sentence of Rule 1.2(a) generally corresponds to EC 7-7 and makes what previously was advisory into a rule. The second sentence of Rule 1.2(a) states explicitly what is implied by EC 7-7. The third sentence of Rule 1.2(a) corresponds generally to DR 7-101(A)(1) and EC 7-10. Rule 1.2(a)(1) and (2) correspond to several sentences in EC 7-7. Rule 1.2(c) does not correspond to any Disciplinary Rule or Ethical Consideration. The first sentence of Rule 1.2(d)(1) corresponds to DR 7-102(A)(7). The second sentence of Rule 1.2(d)(1) is similar to EC 7-4. Rule 1.2(e) is the same as DR 7-105 except for the addition of the prohibition against threatening “professional misconduct allegations.” Comparison to ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 1.2(a) is modified slightly from the Model Rule 1.2(a) by the inclusion of the third sentence, which does not exist in the Model Rules. Model Rule 1.2(b) has been moved to Comment [5] of Rule 1.2 because the provision is more appropriately addressed in a comment rather than a black-letter rule. Rule 1.2(c) differs from Model Rule 1.2(c) in that it requires only that the limitation be communicated to the client, preferably in writing. The Model Rule requires that the client give informed consent to the limitation. Rule 1.2(d)(1) is similar to Model Rule 1.2(d) but differs in two aspects. The Model Rule language “criminal” was changed to “illegal” in Rule 1.2(d)(1), and Model Rule 1.2(d) was split into two sentences in 1.2(d)(1). Rule 1.2(d)(2) does not exist in the Model Rules. Rule 1.2(e) does not exist in the Model Rules. 16 RULE 1.3: DILIGENCE A lawyer shall act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client. Comment [1] A lawyer should pursue a matter on behalf of a client despite opposition, obstruction, or personal inconvenience to the lawyer. A lawyer also must act with commitment and dedication to the interests of the client. [2] A lawyer must control the lawyer’s work load so that each matter can be handled competently. [3] Delay and neglect are inconsistent with a lawyer’s duty of diligence, undermine public confidence, and may prejudice a client’s cause. Reasonable diligence and promptness are expected of a lawyer in handling all client matters and will be evaluated in light of all relevant circumstances. The lawyer disciplinary process is particularly concerned with lawyers who consistently fail to carry out obligations to clients or consciously disregard a duty owed to a client. [4] A lawyer should carry through to conclusion all matters undertaken for a client, unless the client-lawyer relationship is terminated as provided in Rule 1.16. Doubt about whether a client-lawyer relationship still exists should be clarified by the lawyer, preferably in writing, so that the client will not mistakenly suppose the lawyer is looking after the client’s affairs when the lawyer has ceased to do so. For example, if a lawyer has handled a judicial or administrative proceeding that produced a result adverse to the client and the lawyer and the client have not agreed that the lawyer will handle the matter on appeal, the lawyer must consult with the client about post- trial alternatives including the possibility of appeal before relinquishing responsibility for the matter. See Rule 1.4(a)(2). Whether the lawyer is obligated to pursue those alternatives or prosecute the appeal for the client depends on the scope of the representation the lawyer has agreed to provide to the client. See Rules 1.2(c) and 1.5(b). [5] To prevent neglect of client matters in the event of a sole practitioner’s death or disability, the duty of diligence may require that each sole practitioner prepare a plan, in conformity with applicable rules, that designates another competent lawyer to review client files, notify each client of the lawyer’s death or disability, and determine whether there is a need for immediate protective action. Cf. Rule V, Section 26 of the Supreme Court Rules for the Government of the Bar of Ohio. Comparison to former Ohio Code of Professional Responsibility