Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Boylan

Ohio Supreme Court

Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Boylan

707 N.E.2d 465, 85 Ohio St. 3d 115

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedMarch 17, 1999

DocketNo. 98-2637

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 707 N.E.2d 465 (Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Boylan) 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. Boylan, 707 N.E.2d 465, 85 Ohio St. 3d 115 (Ohio 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

We adopt the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the board. The sanction of an indefinite suspension from the practice of law “is especially fitting * * * where neglect of a legal matter is coupled with a failure to cooperate in the ensuing disciplinary investigation.” Warren Cty. Bar Assn. v. Lieser (1997), 79 Ohio St.3d 488, 490, 683 N.E.2d 1148, 1149; see, also, Akron Bar Assn. v. Barnett (1997), 80 Ohio St.3d 269, 685 N.E.2d 1230. The record establishes that respondent exhibited a cavalier attitude toward both the representation of his client and the ensuing disciplinary investigation. Respondent is indefinitely suspended 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 sanction of an indefinite suspension from the practice of law “is especially fitting * * * where neglect of a legal matter is coupled with a failure to cooperate in the ensuing disciplinary investigation.” Warren Cty. Bar Assn. v. Lieser (1997), 79 Ohio St.3d 488, 490, 683 N.E.2d 1148, 1149; see, also, Akron Bar Assn. v. Barnett (1997), 80 Ohio St.3d 269, 685 N.E.2d 1230. The record establishes that respondent exhibited a cavalier attitude toward both the representation of his client and the ensuing disciplinary investigation. Respondent is indefinitely suspended 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 465, 85 Ohio St. 3d 115, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/office-of-disciplinary-counsel-v-boylan-ohio-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack