Bar Ass'n of Greater Cleveland v. Rubinstein

Ohio Supreme Court

Bar Ass'n of Greater Cleveland v. Rubinstein

490 N.E.2d 584, 22 Ohio St. 3d 212, 22 Ohio B. 362, 1986 Ohio LEXIS 579

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedMarch 12, 1986

DocketD.D. No. 85-15

StatusPublished

This text of 490 N.E.2d 584 (Bar Ass'n of Greater Cleveland v. Rubinstein) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bar Ass'n of Greater Cleveland v. Rubinstein, 490 N.E.2d 584, 22 Ohio St. 3d 212, 22 Ohio B. 362, 1986 Ohio LEXIS 579 (Ohio 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Upon review of the record in the instant case, we conclude that the respondent has violated DR 1-102(A)(4), 7-101(A)(3), and 9-102(B)(l), (2), (3) and (4) of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

The respondent contends that his violations, if any, of the aforementioned Disciplinary Rules were not intentional, but resulted from misunderstandings with his clients and a technical application of the rules. However, even assuming that the respondent did not set out to violate the rules in question, his conduct did, in fact, violate these rules. As an attorney licensed to practice in this state, the respondent was charged with knowledge of all of the Disciplinary Rules; and while the respondent may not have intended to harm his clients or to violate the Code of Professional Responsibility, on three separate occasions he did both.

We note that the respondent cooperated in the proceedings below and that he pledged to make his clients whole. The respondent’s cooperation in this matter distinguishes this case from Disciplinary Counsel v. Heck (1984), 15 Ohio St. 3d 33, in which similar disciplinary violations resulted in an indefinite suspension. Accordingly, respondent is hereby suspended from the practice of law in Ohio for a period of one year.

Judgment accordingly.

Celebrezze, C.J., Sweeney, Locher, Holmes, C. Brown, Douglas and Wright, JJ., concur.

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

Per Curiam.

Upon review of the record in the instant case, we conclude that the respondent has violated DR 1-102(A)(4), 7-101(A)(3), and 9-102(B)(l), (2), (3) and (4) of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

The respondent contends that his violations, if any, of the aforementioned Disciplinary Rules were not intentional, but resulted from misunderstandings with his clients and a technical application of the rules. However, even assuming that the respondent did not set out to violate the rules in question, his conduct did, in fact, violate these rules. As an attorney licensed to practice in this state, the respondent was charged with knowledge of all of the Disciplinary Rules; and while the respondent may not have intended to harm his clients or to violate the Code of Professional Responsibility, on three separate occasions he did both.

We note that the respondent cooperated in the proceedings below and that he pledged to make his clients whole. The respondent’s cooperation in this matter distinguishes this case from Disciplinary Counsel v. Heck (1984), 15 Ohio St. 3d 33, in which similar disciplinary violations resulted in an indefinite suspension. Accordingly, respondent is hereby suspended from the practice of law in Ohio for a period of one year.

Judgment accordingly.

Celebrezze, C.J., Sweeney, Locher, Holmes, C. Brown, Douglas and Wright, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

490 N.E.2d 584, 22 Ohio St. 3d 212, 22 Ohio B. 362, 1986 Ohio LEXIS 579, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bar-assn-of-greater-cleveland-v-rubinstein-ohio-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack