Cincinnati Bar Ass'n v. Wolosin

Ohio Supreme Court

Cincinnati Bar Ass'n v. Wolosin

704 N.E.2d 566, 84 Ohio St. 3d 401

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedJanuary 20, 1999

DocketNo. 98-1742

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 704 N.E.2d 566 (Cincinnati Bar Ass'n v. Wolosin) 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. Wolosin, 704 N.E.2d 566, 84 Ohio St. 3d 401 (Ohio 1999).

Pincite

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

704 N.E.2d 566, 84 Ohio St. 3d 401, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cincinnati-bar-assn-v-wolosin-ohio-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack