Cincinnati Bar Ass'n v. Roemer

704 N.E.2d 237, 84 Ohio St. 3d 373
Ohio Supreme Court·Decided January 13, 1999·No. No. 98-1794·Published

Opinion

Per Curiam.

We adopt the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the board. Respondent’s neglect of his clients’ interests, his failure to promptly return unearned retainers, and his disregard of the disciplinary investigation warrant an indefinite suspension from the practice of law in Ohio. Cf. Disciplinary Counsel v. Boykin (1998), 82 Ohio St.3d 100, 694 N.E.2d 899; Mahoning Cty. Bar Assn. v. Daniels (1998), 82 Ohio St.3d 5, 693 N.E.2d 764. Respondent is hereby indefinitely suspended from the practice of law in Ohio with his reinstatement conditioned upon his making full restitution with interest at the judgment rate to Stull and Knepp of the retainers he received. Costs are 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. Roemer, 704 N.E.2d 237, 84 Ohio St. 3d 373 (Ohio 1999).

704 N.E.2d 237 (Cincinnati Bar Ass'n v. Roemer) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Mahoning County Bar Ass'n v. Daniels
693 N.E.2d 764 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1998)
Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Boykin
694 N.E.2d 899 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1998)