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