Cincinnati Bar Ass'n v. Walker
This text of 502 N.E.2d 646 (Cincinnati Bar Ass'n v. Walker) 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.
Opinion
This court finds upon a review of the record that respondent violated the aforementioned Disciplinary Rules. Respondent argues [103]*103that a penalty less than a one-year suspension would be an appropriate sanction in view of his age, prior record and sole-practitioner status. We disagree.
In Disciplinary Counsel v. Morton (1983), 5 Ohio St. 3d 206, this court stated at 208:
“* * * There are few ethical breaches which impact more negatively on the integrity of the legal profession than the misuse of a client’s funds. * * *77
In Toledo Bar Assn. v. Gruhler (1985), 16 Ohio St. 3d 5, this court further stated at 6:
“This court’s disciplinary decisions make it quite clear that misuse of client funds by attorneys will not be tolerated. * * *” See, also, Toledo Bar Assn. v. Potts (1984), 9 Ohio St. 3d 89.
After consideration of the totality of the circumstances and the record before us, we are compelled to accept the recommendation of the board of commissioners. Respondent is hereby suspended from the practice of law for a period of one year.
Judgment accordingly.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
502 N.E.2d 646, 28 Ohio St. 3d 102, 28 Ohio B. 195, 1986 Ohio LEXIS 770, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cincinnati-bar-assn-v-walker-ohio-1986.