Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Henderson

Ohio Supreme Court

Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Henderson

87 Ohio St. 3d 219

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedNovember 10, 1999

DocketNo. 99-1118

StatusPublished

Cited by10 cases

This text of 87 Ohio St. 3d 219 (Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Henderson) 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. Henderson, 87 Ohio St. 3d 219 (Ohio 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

We adopt the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the board. The sanction of an indefinite suspension from the practice of law “ ‘is especially fitting * * * where neglect of a legal matter is coupled with a failure to cooperate in the ensuing disciplinary investigation.’ ” Disciplinary Counsel v. Boylan (1999), 85 Ohio St.3d 115, 117, 707 N.E.2d 465, 467, quoting Warren Cty. Bar Assn. v. Lieser (1997), 79 Ohio St.3d 488, 490, 683 N.E.2d 1148, 1149. Here, like the attorney in Boylan, respondent exhibited a cavalier attitude toward the representation of a client and the ensuing disciplinary investigation. In addition, respondent engaged in a pattern of refusing to respond to multiple investigative inquiries, a duly issued subpoena, and even our show-cause order. Respondent is hereby indefinitely suspended from the practice of law in Ohio. Costs taxed to respondent.

Judgment accordingly.

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

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

Per Curiam.

We adopt the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the board. The sanction of an indefinite suspension from the practice of law “ ‘is especially fitting * * * where neglect of a legal matter is coupled with a failure to cooperate in the ensuing disciplinary investigation.’ ” Disciplinary Counsel v. Boylan (1999), 85 Ohio St.3d 115, 117, 707 N.E.2d 465, 467, quoting Warren Cty. Bar Assn. v. Lieser (1997), 79 Ohio St.3d 488, 490, 683 N.E.2d 1148, 1149. Here, like the attorney in Boylan, respondent exhibited a cavalier attitude toward the representation of a client and the ensuing disciplinary investigation. In addition, respondent engaged in a pattern of refusing to respond to multiple investigative inquiries, a duly issued subpoena, and even our show-cause order. Respondent is hereby indefinitely suspended from the practice of law in Ohio. Costs taxed to respondent.

Judgment accordingly.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

87 Ohio St. 3d 219, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/office-of-disciplinary-counsel-v-henderson-ohio-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack