Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Boulger

Ohio Supreme Court

Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Boulger

725 N.E.2d 1112, 88 Ohio St. 3d 325

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedMarch 29, 2000

DocketNo. 99-2241

StatusPublished

Cited by10 cases

This text of 725 N.E.2d 1112 (Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Boulger) 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. Boulger, 725 N.E.2d 1112, 88 Ohio St. 3d 325 (Ohio 2000).

Pincite

Opinions

Per Curiam.

We adopt the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the board. “Although an indefinite suspension is [normally] warranted when a pattern of neglecting legal matters is coupled with a failure to cooperate in the ensuing disciplinary investigation, there is no pattern of neglect related to multiple clients here.” Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Cicirella (1999), 86 Ohio St.3d 544, 545, 715 N.E.2d 1131, 1132. Given respondent’s lack of a prior disciplinary record, absence of a dishonest or selfish motive related to his neglect, relatively isolated nature of his neglect, eventual cooperation in the disciplinary proceedings, and remorse, a less severe sanction is appropriate. See, e.g., Disciplinary Counsel v. Brown (1999), 87 Ohio St.3d 316, 321-322, 720 N.E.2d 525, 529-530, fn. 1 and 2, and Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline, Proposed Rules and Regulations Governing Procedure on Complaints and Hearings, Section 10, Guidelines for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions, Ohio Official Reports, Nov. 22, 1999 Advance Sheets xli, xliv-xlv, setting forth appropriate mitigating factors to consider in imposing sanctions. Respondent is hereby suspended from the practice of law in Ohio for six months with the entire suspension stayed. Costs taxed to respondent.

Judgment accordingly.

Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur. Moyer, C.J., concurs in part antj dissents in part.

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. “Although an indefinite suspension is [normally] warranted when a pattern of neglecting legal matters is coupled with a failure to cooperate in the ensuing disciplinary investigation, there is no pattern of neglect related to multiple clients here.” Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Cicirella (1999), 86 Ohio St.3d 544, 545, 715 N.E.2d 1131, 1132. Given respondent’s lack of a prior disciplinary record, absence of a dishonest or selfish motive related to his neglect, relatively isolated nature of his neglect, eventual cooperation in the disciplinary proceedings, and remorse, a less severe sanction is appropriate. See, e.g., Disciplinary Counsel v. Brown (1999), 87 Ohio St.3d 316, 321-322, 720 N.E.2d 525, 529-530, fn. 1 and 2, and Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline, Proposed Rules and Regulations Governing Procedure on Complaints and Hearings, Section 10, Guidelines for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions, Ohio Official Reports, Nov. 22, 1999 Advance Sheets xli, xliv-xlv, setting forth appropriate mitigating factors to consider in imposing sanctions. Respondent is hereby suspended from the practice of law in Ohio for six months with the entire suspension stayed. Costs taxed to respondent.

Judgment accordingly.

Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur. Moyer, C.J., concurs in part antj dissents in part.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

725 N.E.2d 1112, 88 Ohio St. 3d 325, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/office-of-disciplinary-counsel-v-boulger-ohio-2000.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack