Disciplinary Counsel v. Zingarelli

689 N.E.2d 545, 81 Ohio St. 3d 86
Ohio Supreme Court·Decided February 18, 1998·No. No. 97-1753·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

We adopt the findings and conclusions of the board, but not its recommendation. Our review of the record indicates that respondent had suffered from his illness for at least twenty years. When he believed in September 1992 that he was entering another biannual manic cycle, he sought out the aid of a physician. He took the prescribed lithium until it ran out, but failed to keep a follow-up appointment. As a result, the physician was unable to monitor respondent’s lithium level and make further prescriptions of the correct dosage.

We believe that respondent, knowing of his genetic illness, had a continuing responsibility to himself and to his clients to scrupulously monitor his condition [88]*88and to follow the dictates of his physician. As the board found, respondent’s failure to do so was the direct cause of the majority of these disciplinary violations. Respondent’s violation of DR 2-107(A)(2) occurred after respondent’s condition was under control. Therefore, respondent is hereby suspended from the practice of law for two years. Costs taxed to respondent.

Judgment accordingly.

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur. F.E. Sweeney, J., dissents and would adopt the recommendation of the board.

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

Disciplinary Counsel v. Zingarelli, 689 N.E.2d 545, 81 Ohio St. 3d 86 (Ohio 1998).

689 N.E.2d 545 (Disciplinary Counsel v. Zingarelli) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Zingarelli
729 N.E.2d 1167 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2000)
Disciplinary Counsel v. Zingarelli
1998 Ohio 451 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1998)