Miami County Bar Ass'n v. Thompson

Ohio Supreme Court

Miami County Bar Ass'n v. Thompson

676 N.E.2d 879, 78 Ohio St. 3d 103

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedApril 2, 1997

DocketNo. 96-1465

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 676 N.E.2d 879 (Miami County Bar Ass'n v. Thompson) 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

Miami County Bar Ass'n v. Thompson, 676 N.E.2d 879, 78 Ohio St. 3d 103 (Ohio 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

We accept the findings and conclusions of the board, but believe that a more stringent penalty is warranted. Respondent represented the lender in this case, but his arrangement with the parties enabled him to receive a fee from the borrower for each loan made by the lender. Despite the fact that the lender independently decided to make each loan, this arrangement put respondent in a position where he could profit by withholding information from or exercising influence on the lender.

A lawyer should avoid even the appearance of impropriety and the implication that his professional judgment on behalf of a client could be affected by the [105]*105lawyer’s own interests. Respondent is therefore suspended for one year from the practice of law. 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