Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Heck

472 N.E.2d 694, 15 Ohio St. 3d 33, 15 Ohio B. 133, 1984 Ohio LEXIS 1257
Ohio Supreme Court·Decided December 13, 1984·No. D.D. No. 84-15·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

An assiduous scrutiny of the record compels us to accept the findings of the board. Although the commingling of client funds with those of the attorney, to the prejudice of a client, warrants strong disciplinary action, it is respondent’s demeanor throughout these pro[34] ceedings that is ultimately responsible for the gravity of the sanction we impose today.

Accordingly, respondent is hereby indefinitely suspended from the practice of law.

Judgment accordingly.

Celebrezze, C.J., W. Brown, Sweeney, Locher, Holmes, C. Brown and J. P. Celebrezze, JJ., concur.

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

Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Heck, 472 N.E.2d 694, 15 Ohio St. 3d 33, 15 Ohio B. 133, 1984 Ohio LEXIS 1257 (Ohio 1984).

472 N.E.2d 694 (Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Heck) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Geauga County Bar Ass'n v. Hall
528 N.E.2d 192 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1988)
Bar Ass'n of Greater Cleveland v. Rubinstein
490 N.E.2d 584 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1986)