Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Bertram

Ohio Supreme Court

Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Bertram

707 N.E.2d 464, 85 Ohio St. 3d 113

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedMarch 17, 1999

DocketNo. 98-2638

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 707 N.E.2d 464 (Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Bertram) 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

Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Bertram, 707 N.E.2d 464, 85 Ohio St. 3d 113 (Ohio 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

We adopt the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the board. “The continuing public confidence in the judicial system and the bar requires that the strictest discipline be imposed in misappropriation cases.” Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Belock (1998), 82 Ohio St.3d 98, 100, 694 N.E.2d 897, 899. Therefore, as respondent concedes, disbarment is the appropriate sanction for respondent’s misappropriation of millions of dollars of his business’s escrow accounts for his personal benefit. See Disciplinary Counsel v. DiCarlantonio (1994), 68 Ohio St.3d 479, 628 N.E.2d 1355, in which we permanently disbarred an attorney for comparable conduct violating DR 1-102(A)(3), 1-102(A)(4), and 1-102(A)(6), and resulting in federal felony convictions. Respondent is hereby permanently 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

Per Curiam.

We adopt the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the board. “The continuing public confidence in the judicial system and the bar requires that the strictest discipline be imposed in misappropriation cases.” Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Belock (1998), 82 Ohio St.3d 98, 100, 694 N.E.2d 897, 899. Therefore, as respondent concedes, disbarment is the appropriate sanction for respondent’s misappropriation of millions of dollars of his business’s escrow accounts for his personal benefit. See Disciplinary Counsel v. DiCarlantonio (1994), 68 Ohio St.3d 479, 628 N.E.2d 1355, in which we permanently disbarred an attorney for comparable conduct violating DR 1-102(A)(3), 1-102(A)(4), and 1-102(A)(6), and resulting in federal felony convictions. Respondent is hereby permanently 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

707 N.E.2d 464, 85 Ohio St. 3d 113, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/office-of-disciplinary-counsel-v-bertram-ohio-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack