Cincinnati Bar Ass'n v. Fidler

700 N.E.2d 323, 83 Ohio St. 3d 396
Ohio Supreme Court·Decided October 14, 1998·No. No. 97-2641·Published·Cited by 14 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

We adopt the findings of fact of the board. We conclude that respondent’s convictions for shoplifting were, as respondent stipulated, in violation of DR 1-102(A)(3), (4), and (6). We further conclude that respondent’s failure to report his 1985 conviction when specifically questioned violated DR 1-103(A).

Recently, when an attorney withheld the truth during a disciplinary investigation, we imposed a definite suspension. Butler Cty. Bar Assn. v. Derivan (1998), 81 Ohio St.3d 300, 691 N.E.2d 256. We find a definite suspension appropriate in this case. Respondent is hereby suspended from the practice of law for eighteen months with one year of the suspension stayed pending successful completion of a one-year probation period and appropriate counseling to address the problems that caused respondent to engage in the underlying misconduct. Cost 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

Cincinnati Bar Ass'n v. Fidler, 700 N.E.2d 323, 83 Ohio St. 3d 396 (Ohio 1998).

700 N.E.2d 323 (Cincinnati Bar Ass'n v. Fidler) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

In Re: Elise Marybeth Lamartina
235 So. 3d 1061 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 2017)
Cincinnati Bar Ass'n v. Moore
36 N.E.3d 171 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2015)
Toledo Bar Assn. v. Harvey
2012 Ohio 4545 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2012)
Cleveland Metropolitan Bar Ass'n v. Johnson
2010 Ohio 4832 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2010)
Disciplinary Counsel v. Robinson
2010 Ohio 3829 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2010)
Toledo Bar Assn. v. Lockhart
1998 Ohio 687 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1998)
Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Fidler
1998 Ohio 39 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1998)