Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Fortado

Ohio Supreme Court

Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Fortado

660 N.E.2d 1154, 74 Ohio St. 3d 604

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedFebruary 28, 1996

DocketNo. 95-1665

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 660 N.E.2d 1154 (Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Fortado) 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. Fortado, 660 N.E.2d 1154, 74 Ohio St. 3d 604 (Ohio 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Fortado asks that we stay his entire two-year suspension, citing Disciplinary Counsel v. Casalinuovo (1993), 66 Ohio St.3d 367, 613 N.E.2d 177, and Disciplinary Counsel v. Carter (1994), 68 Ohio St.3d 568, 629 N.E.2d 430. Casalinuovo and Carter were cases of attorneys who, after being found guilty of drug abuse, received treatment in lieu of conviction under R.C. 2951.041. But in those cases, the respondents were sanctioned solely for using illegal drugs. Fortado is guilty of other misconduct as well; he admits two violations each of DR 1-102(A)(6) and Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G), including the improper disbursement of $11,500 of a client’s funds and repeated failures to cooperate with relator’s investigation.

Accordingly, we adopt the board’s findings, conclusions, and recommendation. Matthew Fortado is suspended from the practice of law in Ohio for two years. [607]*607One year of this sanction is stayed on the conditions recommended by the board as stated above. Costs taxed to respondent.

Judgment accordingly.

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

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

Per Curiam.

Fortado asks that we stay his entire two-year suspension, citing Disciplinary Counsel v. Casalinuovo (1993), 66 Ohio St.3d 367, 613 N.E.2d 177, and Disciplinary Counsel v. Carter (1994), 68 Ohio St.3d 568, 629 N.E.2d 430. Casalinuovo and Carter were cases of attorneys who, after being found guilty of drug abuse, received treatment in lieu of conviction under R.C. 2951.041. But in those cases, the respondents were sanctioned solely for using illegal drugs. Fortado is guilty of other misconduct as well; he admits two violations each of DR 1-102(A)(6) and Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G), including the improper disbursement of $11,500 of a client’s funds and repeated failures to cooperate with relator’s investigation.

Accordingly, we adopt the board’s findings, conclusions, and recommendation. Matthew Fortado is suspended from the practice of law in Ohio for two years. [607]*607One year of this sanction is stayed on the conditions recommended by the board as stated above. Costs taxed to respondent.

Judgment accordingly.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

660 N.E.2d 1154, 74 Ohio St. 3d 604, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/office-of-disciplinary-counsel-v-fortado-ohio-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack