Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Crowley

Ohio Supreme Court

Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Crowley

667 N.E.2d 1183, 76 Ohio St. 3d 365

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedAugust 21, 1996

DocketNo. 96-918

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 667 N.E.2d 1183 (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, 667 N.E.2d 1183, 76 Ohio St. 3d 365 (Ohio 1996).

Pincite

Opinions

Per Curiam.

Having reviewed the record, we concur in the board’s findings and its recommendation. Respondent engaged in a course of dishonesty toward her clients, the Appelhans family, beginning with neglect and a lie, and continuing with lengthy inaction and elaborate deception to cover the lie, that we find particularly distasteful and damaging to the legal profession. See, e.g., Disciplinary Counsel v. Fowerbaugh (1995), 74 Ohio St.3d 187, 658 N.E.2d 237; Toledo Bar Assn. v. Dzienny (1995), 72 Ohio St.3d 173, 648 N.E.2d 499.

Therefore, we find it necessary to suspend respondent from the practice of law. “Dishonesty toward a client, whose interests are the attorney’s duty to protect, is reprehensible.” Lake Cty. Bar Assn. v. Speros (1995), 73 Ohio St.3d 101, 104, 652 N.E.2d 681, 683. In view of respondent’s mitigating evidence, we concur in the board’s recommendation of a limited suspension. Accordingly, we hereby suspend respondent from the practice of law in Ohio for two years, with one year of that suspension stayed on the condition that respondent continue treatment during this two-year period for her depression and provide proof of that treatment or a medical statement that treatment is no longer necessary. Costs taxed to respondent.

Judgment accordingly.

[369]*369Moyer, C.J., Douglas, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer and Stratton, JJ., concur. Cook, J., dissents. Resnick, J., not participating.

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

Per Curiam.

Having reviewed the record, we concur in the board’s findings and its recommendation. Respondent engaged in a course of dishonesty toward her clients, the Appelhans family, beginning with neglect and a lie, and continuing with lengthy inaction and elaborate deception to cover the lie, that we find particularly distasteful and damaging to the legal profession. See, e.g., Disciplinary Counsel v. Fowerbaugh (1995), 74 Ohio St.3d 187, 658 N.E.2d 237; Toledo Bar Assn. v. Dzienny (1995), 72 Ohio St.3d 173, 648 N.E.2d 499.

Therefore, we find it necessary to suspend respondent from the practice of law. “Dishonesty toward a client, whose interests are the attorney’s duty to protect, is reprehensible.” Lake Cty. Bar Assn. v. Speros (1995), 73 Ohio St.3d 101, 104, 652 N.E.2d 681, 683. In view of respondent’s mitigating evidence, we concur in the board’s recommendation of a limited suspension. Accordingly, we hereby suspend respondent from the practice of law in Ohio for two years, with one year of that suspension stayed on the condition that respondent continue treatment during this two-year period for her depression and provide proof of that treatment or a medical statement that treatment is no longer necessary. Costs taxed to respondent.

Judgment accordingly.

[369]*369Moyer, C.J., Douglas, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer and Stratton, JJ., concur. Cook, J., dissents. Resnick, J., not participating.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

667 N.E.2d 1183, 76 Ohio St. 3d 365, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/office-of-disciplinary-counsel-v-crowley-ohio-1996.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack