Akron Bar Ass'n v. Barnett

685 N.E.2d 1230, 80 Ohio St. 3d 269
Ohio Supreme Court·Decided November 19, 1997·No. No. 97-1317·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinions

Per Curiam.

We adopt the findings and conclusions of the panel. However, we find that a more severe sanction is warranted. We are not only concerned about respondent’s neglect of client matters, but we are also troubled by her clear unwillingness to cooperate in the disciplinary process. The record indicates that respondent ignored relator’s numerous attempts to discuss the grievances filed against her and actively attempted to evade the service of the complaint. Respondent is indefinitely suspended from the practice of law in Ohio. Costs taxed to respondent.

Judgment accordingly.

Moyer, C.J., Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur. Douglas, Resnick and F.E. Sweeney, JJ., dissent.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Akron Bar Ass'n v. Barnett, 685 N.E.2d 1230, 80 Ohio St. 3d 269 (Ohio 1997).

685 N.E.2d 1230 (Akron Bar Ass'n v. Barnett) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Boylan
707 N.E.2d 465 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1999)
Cleveland Bar Ass'n. v. Rollins
704 N.E.2d 1210 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1999)
Lorain County Bar Ass'n v. Papcke
689 N.E.2d 549 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1998)
Lorain Cty. Bar Assn. v. Papcke
1998 Ohio 452 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1998)
Akron Bar Assn. v. Barnett
1997 Ohio 142 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1997)