Cleveland Bar Ass'n v. Wangul

699 N.E.2d 924, 83 Ohio St. 3d 308
Ohio Supreme Court·Decided September 30, 1998·No. No. 98-755·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

We adopt the findings and conclusions of the board. The appropriate sanction for misappropriation of client funds is disbarment. Toledo Bar Assn. v. Batt (1997), 78 Ohio St.3d 189, 677 N.E.2d 349, and cases cited therein. We find no mitigating circumstances here which would cause us to [310]*310deviate from imposing that sanction. Respondent is hereby permanently disbarred from the practice of law in Ohio. Costs taxed to respondent.

Judgment accordingly.

Moyer, C.J., Resnick, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur. Douglas and F.E. Sweeney, JJ., dissent.

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

Cleveland Bar Ass'n v. Wangul, 699 N.E.2d 924, 83 Ohio St. 3d 308 (Ohio 1998).

699 N.E.2d 924 (Cleveland Bar Ass'n v. Wangul) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Wangul
1998 Ohio 89 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1998)