Cincinnati Bar Ass'n v. Wolosin

704 N.E.2d 566, 84 Ohio St. 3d 401
Ohio Supreme Court·Decided January 20, 1999·No. No. 98-1742·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

We adopt the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the board. Absent any mitigating circumstances, appropriation of client funds and a pattern of neglecting client interests warrant disbarment. Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Armon (1997), 78 Ohio St.3d 497, 499-500, 678 N.E.2d 1371, 1373. Given the number of these incidents, the lack of any mitigating evidence, as well as respondent’s failure to comply with our suspension order and cooperate in the disciplinary investigation, disbarment is the only appropriate sanction here. Respondent is hereby permanently disbarred from the practice of law in Ohio. Costs 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. Wolosin, 704 N.E.2d 566, 84 Ohio St. 3d 401 (Ohio 1999).

704 N.E.2d 566 (Cincinnati Bar Ass'n v. Wolosin) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Columbus Bar Assn. v. Foster
2001 Ohio 199 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2001)
Disciplinary Counsel v. Ryan
2000 Ohio 145 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2000)
Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Ryan
730 N.E.2d 380 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2000)
Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Reis
1999 Ohio 195 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1999)