Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Henderson

Ohio Supreme Court

Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Henderson

87 Ohio St. 3d 219

Ohio Supreme Court·Decided November 10, 1999·No. No. 99-1118·Published·Cited by 10 cases

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.

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

Pincite

87 Ohio St. 3d 219 (Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Henderson) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related