Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Clark

Ohio Supreme Court

Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Clark

677 N.E.2d 1181, 78 Ohio St. 3d 302

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedApril 30, 1997

DocketNo. 96-1968

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 677 N.E.2d 1181 (Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Clark) 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. Clark, 677 N.E.2d 1181, 78 Ohio St. 3d 302 (Ohio 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

We have reviewed the record and accept the findings and conclusions of the board. Neglect of an entrusted legal matter warrants the sanction of suspension. Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Droe (1996), 77 Ohio St.3d 89, 671 N.E.2d 230. In view of the repetitive nature of respondent’s violations, we hereby suspend respondent from the practice of law for two years, with one year of the suspension stayed and respondent placed on probation for that one-year period. As conditions of probation, respondent is to enter into a contract with OLAP or a similar monitoring agency, attend counseling and support-group meetings regularly, maintain regular contact with a legal mentor, remain alcohol-free, and attend legal-office management courses for a minimum of twelve hours, as a part of his Continuing Legal Education requirement. 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 have reviewed the record and accept the findings and conclusions of the board. Neglect of an entrusted legal matter warrants the sanction of suspension. Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Droe (1996), 77 Ohio St.3d 89, 671 N.E.2d 230. In view of the repetitive nature of respondent’s violations, we hereby suspend respondent from the practice of law for two years, with one year of the suspension stayed and respondent placed on probation for that one-year period. As conditions of probation, respondent is to enter into a contract with OLAP or a similar monitoring agency, attend counseling and support-group meetings regularly, maintain regular contact with a legal mentor, remain alcohol-free, and attend legal-office management courses for a minimum of twelve hours, as a part of his Continuing Legal Education requirement. 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)

677 N.E.2d 1181, 78 Ohio St. 3d 302, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/office-of-disciplinary-counsel-v-clark-ohio-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack