After law school, William Bluth worked as a law clerk for the Honorable Orrin Judd of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. He is presently a member of both the Ohio and New York bars.

In 1970, Professor Bluth was hired as an Assistant Professor of Law at Capital University Law School where he has been employed for the past 35 years. He was promoted to Associate Professor in 1973 and Professor in 1975. At Capital, Professor Bluth founded the law school’s clinical education program that provided legal services to the inmates of the Ohio Penitentiary. In 1972, the state of Ohio retained Professor Bluth’s clinical program to provide legal services to all of Ohio’s prisons. The program ran for two years and it received national recognition, including recognition from the United States Supreme Court. See, Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817 (1977). In the mid-1970’s, his clinical program shifted from prisoner cases to civil and criminal cases. Professor Bluth supervised students in the litigation of these cases. Eventually Professor Bluth returned to classroom teaching in the mid 1980’s. He currently teaches criminal law, criminal procedure, family law and evidence.

Since being admitted to practice in Ohio in 1970, Professor Bluth has maintained a small private practice in addition to his teaching responsibilities at Capital University Law School. Professor Bluth has tried a wide variety of civil and criminal cases throughout the state of Ohio and has argued cases in the Ohio Court of Appeals, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court of Ohio.

In his varied practice, Professor Bluth tried a postal robbery and bank robbery case in Federal Court where one of the main government witnesses was the owner of a tracking dog who turned out to be a fraud. His research on this witness turned into a national news story and probably saved the life of a prisoner on death row in Arizona. Later he served as an expert witness in a capital case in Florida concerning how this purported expert should have been cross-examined. Professor Bluth also tried and argued in the Ohio Court of Appeals a case that established the principle that an employer can enforce a covenant not to compete against an existing employee at will because the promise of continued employment is adequate consideration for the covenant. Professor Bluth’s argument was subsequently adopted by the Ohio Supreme Court. In a domestic relations case, Professor Bluth secured visitation rights for a father whose children lived with their mother in England by securing “mirror” orders issued by the Franklin County Domestic Relations Court and its counterpart in London, England so that either court could enforce the visitation agreement. Professor Bluth has also created and advised several small businesses, some of whom have become very successful.