Cleveland Bar Ass'n v. Hamilton

217 N.E.2d 863, 6 Ohio St. 2d 264, 35 Ohio Op. 2d 424, 1966 Ohio LEXIS 381
Ohio Supreme Court·Decided June 15, 1966·No. D. D. No. 73·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Prom an examination of the transcript of the evidence and the exhibits, we are of the view that the findings of the board are supportable; that respondent in the capacity of an attorney misappropriated and misapplied funds entrusted to him by a client; and that his conduct was reprehensible and indefensible and constituted a violation of the Canons of Professional Ethics and the rules of this court, as specified by the board. However, because of certain mitigating circumstances, this court is of the opinion that the recommendation of the board should be reduced from disbarment to a suspension for an indefinite period under Section (6) (b), Rule XVIII of this court.

Report confirmed as herein modified and judgment accordingly.

Taft, C. J., Zimmerman, Matthias, O’Neill, Herbert, Schneider and Brown, JJ., concur.

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

Cleveland Bar Ass'n v. Hamilton, 217 N.E.2d 863, 6 Ohio St. 2d 264, 35 Ohio Op. 2d 424, 1966 Ohio LEXIS 381 (Ohio 1966).

217 N.E.2d 863 (Cleveland Bar Ass'n v. Hamilton) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Columbus Bar Ass'n v. Pfefferle
417 N.E.2d 105 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1981)
Akron Bar Ass'n v. Hughes
348 N.E.2d 712 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1976)
Columbus Bar Ass'n v. Tuttle
324 N.E.2d 753 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1975)
Cincinnati Bar Ass'n v. Bednarczuk
258 N.E.2d 116 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1970)