Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Crowley

Ohio Supreme Court

Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Crowley

634 N.E.2d 1008, 69 Ohio St. 3d 554

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedJuly 13, 1994

DocketNo. 93-2537

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 634 N.E.2d 1008 (Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Crowley) 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. Crowley, 634 N.E.2d 1008, 69 Ohio St. 3d 554 (Ohio 1994).

Pincite

Opinions

Per Curiam.

We concur in the board’s findings of misconduct. In addition, the board increased the sanction recommended by the panel because of “the calculated, deliberate manner in which Respondent conducted and concealed his fraudulent schemes, his gross abuse of a position of trust and responsibility for personal gain, the amount of the theft, the length of time over which the thefts occurred and a concern that Respondent’s testimony, offered in mitigation and justification of the thefts, instead demonstrated a fundamental lack of appreciation for lawyers’ ethical obligations to the profession and the public.”

We agree with this assessment of respondent’s misconduct and that indefinite suspension is the appropriate sanction. Accordingly, James Tyner Crowley is hereby indefinitely suspended from the practice of law in Ohio. Costs taxed to respondent.

Judgment accordingly.

Moyer, C.J., AW. Sweeney, Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney and Pfeifer, JJ., concur. Wright, J., dissents.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam.

We concur in the board’s findings of misconduct. In addition, the board increased the sanction recommended by the panel because of “the calculated, deliberate manner in which Respondent conducted and concealed his fraudulent schemes, his gross abuse of a position of trust and responsibility for personal gain, the amount of the theft, the length of time over which the thefts occurred and a concern that Respondent’s testimony, offered in mitigation and justification of the thefts, instead demonstrated a fundamental lack of appreciation for lawyers’ ethical obligations to the profession and the public.”

We agree with this assessment of respondent’s misconduct and that indefinite suspension is the appropriate sanction. Accordingly, James Tyner Crowley is hereby indefinitely suspended from the practice of law in Ohio. Costs taxed to respondent.

Judgment accordingly.

Moyer, C.J., AW. Sweeney, Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney and Pfeifer, JJ., concur. Wright, J., dissents.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

634 N.E.2d 1008, 69 Ohio St. 3d 554, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/office-of-disciplinary-counsel-v-crowley-ohio-1994.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack