Lorain County Bar Ass'n v. Ross

778 N.E.2d 39, 97 Ohio St. 3d 224
CourtOhio Supreme Court
DecidedNovember 6, 2002
DocketNo. 2002-0700
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 778 N.E.2d 39 (Lorain County Bar Ass'n v. Ross) 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
Lorain County Bar Ass'n v. Ross, 778 N.E.2d 39, 97 Ohio St. 3d 224 (Ohio 2002).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

{¶ 1} In this case, we have reviewed the recommendation of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline that respondent, Michael A. Ross of Avon, Ohio, Attorney Registration No. 0061243, be publicly reprimanded for having violated Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) (failing to cooperate in an investigation of [225]*225professional misconduct). Upon review of the record, we adopt the board’s findings and recommendation.

Fauver, Keyse-Walker & Donovan and John L. Keyse-Walker, for relator. William T. Doyle, for respondent.

{¶ 2} Relator, Lorain County Bar Association, charged respondent with failure to cooperate in a disciplinary investigation by a complaint filed with the board on January 29, 2001. A panel of the board heard the cause, found the violation of Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G), and recommended a public reprimand. The panel determined that while the issue of respondent’s conduct in his representation of a client was no longer before it, respondent’s conceded failure to respond promptly or at all to information requests constituted a dereliction of his professional obligations. In making its recommendation, the panel considered respondent’s lack of a prior disciplinary record, numerous character references, service to the community," and remorse.

{¶ 3} The board adopted the panel’s findings and recommendation. We agree with the board that a public reprimand is appropriate. Respondent is therefore publicly reprimanded for having violated Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G). Costs are 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

Related

Disciplinary Counsel v. Ross
837 N.E.2d 773 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2005)
Lorain County Bar Ass'n v. Paterson
786 N.E.2d 874 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2003)
Lorain Cty. Bar Assn. v. Ross
2002 Ohio 5803 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2002)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
778 N.E.2d 39, 97 Ohio St. 3d 224, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lorain-county-bar-assn-v-ross-ohio-2002.