Cincinnati Bar Ass'n v. Heekin

Ohio Supreme Court

Cincinnati Bar Ass'n v. Heekin

459 N.E.2d 495, 9 Ohio St. 3d 84, 9 Ohio B. 314, 1984 Ohio LEXIS 1010

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedJanuary 25, 1984

DocketD.D. No. 83-33

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 459 N.E.2d 495 (Cincinnati Bar Ass'n v. Heekin) 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. Heekin, 459 N.E.2d 495, 9 Ohio St. 3d 84, 9 Ohio B. 314, 1984 Ohio LEXIS 1010 (Ohio 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Respondent did not deny his involvement in the theft of over three quarters of a million dollars worth of utility services for his corporation. Such criminal activity cannot be lightly regarded by this court in its attempt to maintain the high ethical standards which must be an integral part of the legal profession in Ohio. Therefore, this court is compelled to go a step further than the recommendation of the board and permanently disbar the respondent.

Respondent has violated three Disciplinary Rules which require an attorney to avoid involvement in illegal or deceitful conduct.¹ It is impossible for this court to reach any other decision than the one reached today. It is imperative that the members of the Ohio Bar avoid any conduct which reflects adversely on their fitness to practice law. In this case, respondent steps far [86]*86beyond the threshold of bad judgment or questionable practices which are often the subject matter of proceedings which produce a lesser sanction. Respondent was a party to felony offenses.

This court finds respondent has violated disciplinary rule DR 1-102(A)(3), (4) and (6), and it is the judgment of this court that respondent be permanently disbarred.

Judgment accordingly.

Celebrezze, C.J., W. Brown, Sweeney, Locher, Holmes, C. Brown and J. P. Celebrezze, JJ., concur.

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

Per Curiam.

Respondent did not deny his involvement in the theft of over three quarters of a million dollars worth of utility services for his corporation. Such criminal activity cannot be lightly regarded by this court in its attempt to maintain the high ethical standards which must be an integral part of the legal profession in Ohio. Therefore, this court is compelled to go a step further than the recommendation of the board and permanently disbar the respondent.

Respondent has violated three Disciplinary Rules which require an attorney to avoid involvement in illegal or deceitful conduct.¹ It is impossible for this court to reach any other decision than the one reached today. It is imperative that the members of the Ohio Bar avoid any conduct which reflects adversely on their fitness to practice law. In this case, respondent steps far [86]*86beyond the threshold of bad judgment or questionable practices which are often the subject matter of proceedings which produce a lesser sanction. Respondent was a party to felony offenses.

This court finds respondent has violated disciplinary rule DR 1-102(A)(3), (4) and (6), and it is the judgment of this court that respondent be permanently disbarred.

Judgment accordingly.

Celebrezze, C.J., W. Brown, Sweeney, Locher, Holmes, C. Brown and J. P. Celebrezze, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

459 N.E.2d 495, 9 Ohio St. 3d 84, 9 Ohio B. 314, 1984 Ohio LEXIS 1010, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cincinnati-bar-assn-v-heekin-ohio-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack