Butler County Bar Ass'n v. Derivan

691 N.E.2d 256, 81 Ohio St. 3d 300
Ohio Supreme Court·Decided April 1, 1998·No. No. 97-2259·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

We have reviewed the record and adopt the findings and conclusions of the board. However, we believe a more severe sanction is warranted. This case involves more than respondent’s negligence in failing to file a case within the appropriate statute of limitations. Respondent deliberately manufactured a document to exonerate himself and presented it as genuine in a formal disciplinary proceeding. Respondent is hereby suspended from the practice of law in Ohio for six months. Costs taxed to respondent.

Judgment accordingly.

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

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

Butler County Bar Ass'n v. Derivan, 691 N.E.2d 256, 81 Ohio St. 3d 300 (Ohio 1998).

691 N.E.2d 256 (Butler County Bar Ass'n v. Derivan) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Disciplinary Counsel v. Maney.
2017 Ohio 8799 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2017)
Butler County Bar Ass'n v. Derivan
703 N.E.2d 317 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1998)
Butler Cty. Bar Assn. v. Derivan
1998 Ohio 546 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1998)
Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Fidler
1998 Ohio 39 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1998)