CSNbbs
Monica Rimai - Printable Version

+- CSNbbs (https://csnbbs.com)
+-- Forum: Active Boards (/forum-769.html)
+--- Forum: AACbbs (/forum-460.html)
+---- Forum: Archives (/forum-400.html)
+----- Forum: AACbbs Archives (/forum-418.html)
+------ Forum: Cincinnati Archives (/forum-932.html)
+------ Thread: Monica Rimai (/thread-50619.html)

Pages: 1 2


- BearcatBeta - 09-12-2005 12:03 PM

per blogger....NZ may make no appoligies for "raising standards"..but only when they don't apply to her or her hand chosen staff.

General Counsel

As the correspondence made public by the Cincinnati Enquirer indicates, since at least July 12, 2005, Ms. Monica Rimai has been holding herself out as the “Vice President for Legal Affairs and General Counsel


- Ring of Black - 09-12-2005 12:18 PM

Good find 04-bow 04-cheers

Every time I think to myself that the Zimpher regime cannot get any more embarrassing, I get proven wrong.

G Ruehls, I'm not much of a law guy, but this seems legit. Do you have any comment?


- Lush - 09-12-2005 12:31 PM

Geez Beta! Nice work. 04-bow


- Eastside_J - 09-12-2005 12:50 PM

Absolutely well done!

Submit it! Submit it! 04-bow


- gruehls - 09-12-2005 12:54 PM

totally legit.

i'm unaware of any waiver in ohio for registration requirements for general counsel of universities, and i doubt one exists.

as a comparison, those opposed to bush's appointment of thomas griffith to the court of appeals made a big deal about a very similar scenario:<a href='http://www.watchingjustice.org/whatsnew/whatsnew.php?docId=322' target='_blank'>Bush Judicial Nominee Practiced Without License</a>


- Lush - 09-12-2005 12:58 PM

gruehls Wrote:totally legit.

i'm unaware of any waiver in ohio for registration requirements for general counsel of universities, and i doubt one exists.

as a comparison, those opposed to bush's appointment of thomas griffith to the court of appeals made a big deal about a very similar scenario:<a href='http://www.watchingjustice.org/whatsnew/whatsnew.php?docId=322' target='_blank'>Bush Judicial Nominee Practiced Without License</a>
Since when did you become a lawyer Ruehls? :D


- Bearcat Steve - 09-12-2005 01:00 PM

Let me first say that I am NOT a lawyer and my opinion regarding legal issues does not matter one bit.

With that, I heard Willie interview an Ohio judge and attorney on 700 WLW. Willie raised the issue of Ms. Rimai not being admitted to the Ohio Bar. The judge said that it was OK for her to do what she was doing as long as she did not appear in a court of law in Ohio. In other words, it is OK to give someone legal advice to someone in Ohio if you are not a member of the Ohio Bar as long as you don't appear in court.

Maybe we could get the legal eagles on this site to comment.


- BearcatDave - 09-12-2005 01:02 PM

I knew they Rimai and Zimpher were crooked and unjustified. This is proof!

I sure hope this guy makes a complaint.

I mean if she can practice law in Ohio without a license, what is to stop me from masquerading as one?


- Lush - 09-12-2005 01:06 PM

BearcatDave Wrote:I knew they Rimai and Zimpher were crooked and unjustified. This is proof!

I sure hope this guy makes a complaint.

I mean if she can practice law in Ohio without a license, what is to stop me from masquerading as one?
Reminds me of the time I walked down Avondale dressed as a cop. FWIW, bad idea.


- gruehls - 09-12-2005 01:24 PM

Ziggy Stardust Wrote:Since when did you become a lawyer Ruehls? &nbsp; :D

the long ago year of 1981. sigh.

Bearcat Steve Wrote:...  The judge said that it was OK for her to do what she was doing as long as she did not appear in a court of law in Ohio.  In other words, it is OK to give someone legal advice to someone in Ohio if you are not a member of the Ohio Bar as long as you don't appear in court.

i'm no expert on this subject, and how states handle this varies dramatically across state lines, but i don't think that's right Steve.

lots of attorneys never appear in court (real estate attys, tax attys, bond counsel, etc.) but they have to be licensed in ohio if they practice here. if she was being paid a fee here, it's a no brainer.

here's the ohio supreme court rule on registration:

Section 4. Attorneys not Admitted in Ohio.

(A) An attorney who is admitted to the practice of law in another state or in the District of Columbia, but not in Ohio , and who is employed full-time by a nongovernmental Ohio employer may register for corporate status by filing a Certificate of Registration and paying the fee as required by Section 1 of this rule. The Attorney Registration Section may require additional information and documents, including a certificate of admission and good standing from the jurisdiction in which the attorney is admitted, from an attorney who registers for corporate status. An attorney who is granted corporate status may perform legal services in Ohio solely for a nongovernmental Ohio employer, as long as the attorney is a full-time employee of that employer. Registration under this section shall be effective and may be renewed biennially only as long as the attorney is so employed. An attorney who is granted corporate status shall promptly notify the Attorney Registration Section in writing upon termination of full-time employment with the Ohio employer.

(B) An attorney who is granted corporate status may not practice before any court or agency of this state on behalf of the attorney's employer or any person except himself or herself, unless granted leave by the court or agency.

© An attorney who is admitted to the practice of law in another state or in the District of Columbia, but not in Ohio, and who performs legal services in Ohio for his or her employer, but fails to register in compliance with this section or does not qualify to register under this section, may be referred for investigation of the unauthorized practice of law under Gov. Bar R. VII, Section 3 and shall be precluded from applying for admission without examination under Gov. Bar R. I, Section 9.

(D) Division (A) of this section shall not apply to an attorney who is admitted to the practice of law in another state or in the District of Columbia, but not in Ohio , and who is employed by, associated with, or a partner in an Ohio law firm. Until the attorney is admitted to the practice of law in Ohio , the attorney may not practice law in Ohio , hold himself or herself out as authorized to practice law in Ohio , or practice before any nonfederal court or agency in this state on behalf of any person except himself or herself, unless granted leave by the court or agency. The law firm may include the name of the attorney on its letterhead only if the letterhead includes a designation that the attorney is not admitted in Ohio.

(E) An attorney's registration in compliance with this section shall not be considered in determining whether the attorney satisfies the practice of law requirements set forth in Gov. Bar R. I, Sec. 9(A)(2).


if she doesn't hold corporate status, and if uc is not a "non-governmental employer," and if there isn't some other exemption, she may have a problem, but she sure ain't going to jail.


- Ring of Black - 09-12-2005 01:38 PM

Help a dummy out, here: Is UC, a state school, consdiered "governmental" or "non-governmental"?


- Mike In Clifton - 09-12-2005 02:39 PM

gruehls Wrote:if she doesn't hold corporate status, and if uc is not a "non-governmental employer," and if there isn't some other exemption, she may have a problem, but she sure ain't going to jail.

. . . .and it wont bring Huggins back.

There were many folks upset with the fact that hundreds and hundreds of lawyers have graduated from the University over the years and there had to be a few qualified to handle the position of General Counsel and interested in working for their alma mater. But Rimai was brought in without a normal interview process.


- Sully - 09-12-2005 02:53 PM

Based on what I read the forced buy out of Huggs is null and void due to legal misrespresentation on the part of UC's top administration.


- Ring of Black - 09-12-2005 02:58 PM

Mike In Clifton Wrote:. . . .and it wont bring Huggins back.
Better watch out, Mike. Some people on this board will brand you a "whiner" or "non-fan" with that kind of talk.


- mbl95 - 09-12-2005 04:38 PM

BearcatBeta.........this is GREAT stuff. I believe this sort of documented ethical violation/act is the ONLY thing that can bring Z down in the short-run. There has to be someone out there who's a UC Law graduate and Bearcat fan who could confirm the validity of this quickly. If it can be confirmed.........taking it to the media and/or elsewhere could then be accomplished. RUN WITH THIS!


- BearcatBeta - 09-12-2005 05:05 PM

I wouldn't call it running,,but maybe it needs to be copied/linked to the ENQ and Post.
I've merely found this under a simple search of Monica Rimia,,I don't warrant that the implications, legal merits, or facts on either side of this material are complete.
However, I do say that if they are true, that NZ's administration in their rush to vendetta against Huggins, may not have had their house in order, a significant new ripple in the pool of public opinion.

The same body of water where votes of "no confidence" come from.


- Mike In Clifton - 09-12-2005 05:56 PM

Lemmiwinks Wrote:
Mike In Clifton Wrote:. . . .and it wont bring Huggins back.
Better watch out, Mike. Some people on this board will brand you a "whiner" or "non-fan" with that kind of talk.
I'm a risk taker.


Elsewhere on the blog that Beta used as the source, the blogger refers to Huggins' attorney, Richard Katz, as 'my former employer'.

Therefore, I would say that Katz had knowledge of Rimai's status - right or wrong as it is.


- Eastside_J - 09-12-2005 07:15 PM

Therefore, I would say that Katz had knowledge of Rimai's status - right or wrong as it is.

***********************************************************************

Mike I don't think thats relevant and it certainly wouldn't have changed how Katz would have handled this.

The relevance, in my opinion, comes down to the competence and the ethics of Zimpher. She seems to have skirted a serious issue to bring in counsel that would support her without question. Neither is likely stupid enough to have not considered the lack of standing with the state bar. They had a job to do and they didn't care how it was accomplished.

Zimpher should have to answer for this and Rimai should have some questions to answer in front of the Bar.

I realize that we aren't going to bring Huggins back. However I still think we should hardly rest when the current incompetent, arrogant administration flips us off one hand and begs us for support with the other.

These are not good people.


- Rathskeller_Crew - 09-12-2005 07:37 PM

Everybody friggin' relax. There are some facts that are important that are not known right now, but overall, i don't think this is all that big of a deal.

About 15 questions regarding this type of problem on Nov. 2004 MPRE. I think she comes out of this relatively unscathed (I got a 132...yea for me).

Honestly, this board is starting to sound like the Drudge Report back during the Clinton administration. Bitchin' and looking for any little thing to get offended over to blow up as the second coming of Watergate aint' gunna bring Huggs back or get her posterior thrown out of office. People need to get over it and decide if they want to support UC or not. $hit or get off the pot.

This is getting humorous in a sad sort of way. Flame away. :wave:


- Eastside_J - 09-12-2005 08:18 PM

There are some facts that are important that are not known right now
***************************************************************

OK Ill bite. Lets have it then.

or pm me if you'd rather.