Dayton Bar Ass'n v. Buren

703 N.E.2d 767, 84 Ohio St. 3d 271
Ohio Supreme Court·Decided December 30, 1998·No. No. 98-1729·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

We concur with the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the board. Burén engaged in a continuing course of deceit, misrepresentation, and neglect of duty to his clients and the bankruptcy court. In addition, Burén has failed to cooperate with disciplinary proceedings. Under these circumstances, disbarment is the appropriate sanction. See, e.g., Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Churilla (1997), 78 Ohio St.3d 348, 350, 678 N.E.2d 515, 516-517; [274] Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Brown (1997), 78 Ohio St.3d 345, 678 N.E.2d 513. Buren is hereby 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

Dayton Bar Ass'n v. Buren, 703 N.E.2d 767, 84 Ohio St. 3d 271 (Ohio 1998).

703 N.E.2d 767 (Dayton Bar Ass'n v. Buren) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Dayton Bar Assn. v. Buren
1998 Ohio 552 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1998)