Cincinnati Bar Ass'n v. Hatfield

Ohio Supreme Court

Cincinnati Bar Ass'n v. Hatfield

673 N.E.2d 1268, 77 Ohio St. 3d 231

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedJanuary 15, 1997

DocketNo. 96-1966

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 673 N.E.2d 1268 (Cincinnati Bar Ass'n v. Hatfield) 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

Cincinnati Bar Ass'n v. Hatfield, 673 N.E.2d 1268, 77 Ohio St. 3d 231 (Ohio 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

We have previously said that our Disciplinary Rules require that a lawyer not intentionally fail to carry out his contract with his client or cause damage to the client. Columbus Bar Assn. v. Clark (1996), 76 Ohio St.3d 363, 365, 667 N.E.2d 1182, 1183. For that reason we have indefinitely suspended lawyers who have lied to their clients and deceived them into believing that their interests were being attended to when they were not. Disciplinary Counsel v. [233]*233Trumbo (1996), 76 Ohio St.3d 369, 667 N.E.2d 1186. In Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Altekruse (1994), 69 Ohio St.3d 266, 631 N.E.2d 612, we indefinitely suspended an attorney who, after receiving a retainer, failed to file a bankruptcy petition, but informed his client that the petition had been filed. An even more severe punishment of disbarment was the appropriate sanction for the misappropriation of client funds in Disciplinary Counsel v. Connaughton (1996), 75 Ohio St.3d 644, 645, 665 N.E.2d 675, 676.

In this case respondent misappropriated client funds, falsely told his clients that he had filed actions on their behalf, and intentionally settled matters against his clients’ express instructions.

The board has recommended an indefinite suspension in this ease with reinstatement conditioned upon restitution to Diers, the estate of Wages,¹ Wheale, and Jurkowitz. We adopt the findings and conclusions of the board. Respondent is hereby indefinitely suspended from the practice of law in Ohio with reinstatement conditioned upon proof that respondent has made restitution in the following amounts, with interest at the judgment rate:

Kristina Diers $585

John Wheale and Pauline Jurkowitz $146.50

Estate of Ronald P. Wages $700

Costs and expenses of this proceeding are hereby taxed to the respondent.

Judgment accordingly.

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

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

Per Curiam.

We have previously said that our Disciplinary Rules require that a lawyer not intentionally fail to carry out his contract with his client or cause damage to the client. Columbus Bar Assn. v. Clark (1996), 76 Ohio St.3d 363, 365, 667 N.E.2d 1182, 1183. For that reason we have indefinitely suspended lawyers who have lied to their clients and deceived them into believing that their interests were being attended to when they were not. Disciplinary Counsel v. [233]*233Trumbo (1996), 76 Ohio St.3d 369, 667 N.E.2d 1186. In Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Altekruse (1994), 69 Ohio St.3d 266, 631 N.E.2d 612, we indefinitely suspended an attorney who, after receiving a retainer, failed to file a bankruptcy petition, but informed his client that the petition had been filed. An even more severe punishment of disbarment was the appropriate sanction for the misappropriation of client funds in Disciplinary Counsel v. Connaughton (1996), 75 Ohio St.3d 644, 645, 665 N.E.2d 675, 676.

In this case respondent misappropriated client funds, falsely told his clients that he had filed actions on their behalf, and intentionally settled matters against his clients’ express instructions.

The board has recommended an indefinite suspension in this ease with reinstatement conditioned upon restitution to Diers, the estate of Wages,¹ Wheale, and Jurkowitz. We adopt the findings and conclusions of the board. Respondent is hereby indefinitely suspended from the practice of law in Ohio with reinstatement conditioned upon proof that respondent has made restitution in the following amounts, with interest at the judgment rate:

Kristina Diers $585

John Wheale and Pauline Jurkowitz $146.50

Estate of Ronald P. Wages $700

Costs and expenses of this proceeding are hereby taxed to the respondent.

Judgment accordingly.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

673 N.E.2d 1268, 77 Ohio St. 3d 231, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cincinnati-bar-assn-v-hatfield-ohio-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack