Lorain Cty. Bar Assn. v. Ross

Ohio Supreme Court

Lorain Cty. Bar Assn. v. Ross

2002 Ohio 5803, 97 Ohio St. 3d 224

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedNovember 6, 2002

Docket2002-0700

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 2002 Ohio 5803 (Lorain Cty. Bar Assn. 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 Cty. Bar Assn. v. Ross, 2002 Ohio 5803, 97 Ohio St. 3d 224 (Ohio 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

[This decision has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 97 Ohio St.3d 224.]

LORAIN COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION v. ROSS. [Cite as Lorain Cty. Bar Assn. v. Ross, 2002-Ohio-5803.] Attorneys at law—Misconduct—Public reprimand—Failing to cooperate in an investigation of professional misconduct. (No. 2002-0700—Submitted July 24, 2002—Decided November 6, 2002.) ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 01-01. __________________ 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 professional misconduct). Upon review of the record, we adopt the board’s findings and recommendation. {¶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. SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

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

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

[This decision has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 97 Ohio St.3d 224.]

LORAIN COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION v. ROSS. [Cite as Lorain Cty. Bar Assn. v. Ross, 2002-Ohio-5803.] Attorneys at law—Misconduct—Public reprimand—Failing to cooperate in an investigation of professional misconduct. (No. 2002-0700—Submitted July 24, 2002—Decided November 6, 2002.) ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 01-01. __________________ 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 professional misconduct). Upon review of the record, we adopt the board’s findings and recommendation. {¶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. SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2002 Ohio 5803, 97 Ohio St. 3d 224, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lorain-cty-bar-assn-v-ross-ohio-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack