Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Heffernan

Ohio Supreme Court

Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Heffernan

569 N.E.2d 1027, 58 Ohio St. 3d 260, 1991 Ohio LEXIS 899

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedApril 3, 1991

DocketNo. 90-2090

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 569 N.E.2d 1027 (Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Heffernan) 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. Heffernan, 569 N.E.2d 1027, 58 Ohio St. 3d 260, 1991 Ohio LEXIS 899 (Ohio 1991).

Pincite

Opinions

Per Curiam.

We accept the findings of the board that respondent did not know of the fraud perpetrated on the court at the time of the trial in the Shaker Heights Municipal Court. However, once respondent learned of the fraud and confronted the Fresenda brothers, he had a duty to reveal the fraud to the court. See DR 7-102(B)(l). We consider respondent’s inaction in this matter a serious breach of duty for which a public reprimand is not an adequate sanction.

Accordingly, we hereby suspend respondent from the practice of law in Ohio for six months. Costs taxed to respondent.

Judgment accordingly.

Moyer, C.J., Sweeney, Holmes, Wright and Re snick, JJ., concur. Douglas and H. Brown, JJ., dissent.

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