Cleveland Bar Ass'n v. Hamilton

Ohio Supreme Court

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

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedJune 15, 1966

DocketD. D. No. 73

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 217 N.E.2d 863 (Cleveland Bar Ass'n v. Hamilton) 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

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).

Pincite

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

217 N.E.2d 863, 6 Ohio St. 2d 264, 35 Ohio Op. 2d 424, 1966 Ohio LEXIS 381, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cleveland-bar-assn-v-hamilton-ohio-1966.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack