Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Holzer

Ohio Supreme Court

Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Holzer

677 N.E.2d 1186, 78 Ohio St. 3d 309

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedApril 30, 1997

DocketNo. 96-1965

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 677 N.E.2d 1186 (Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Holzer) 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. Holzer, 677 N.E.2d 1186, 78 Ohio St. 3d 309 (Ohio 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

We adopt the findings and conclusions of the board, but believe that a more severe sanction is warranted. Unlike the fee padding committed in Toledo Bar Assn. v. Batt (1997), 78 Ohio St.3d 189, 677 N.E.2d 349, the work for which the city was charged in this case was actually performed. The work performed, however, was for the personal account of the city manager and, despite this, was knowingly charged to the city. Taking into account respondent’s reputation and the isolated nature of the incident, we nonetheless find that a year’s actual suspension is appropriate in this case.

Respondent is hereby suspended from the practice of law for one year from the date of entry of this order. Costs taxed to the 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 and conclusions of the board, but believe that a more severe sanction is warranted. Unlike the fee padding committed in Toledo Bar Assn. v. Batt (1997), 78 Ohio St.3d 189, 677 N.E.2d 349, the work for which the city was charged in this case was actually performed. The work performed, however, was for the personal account of the city manager and, despite this, was knowingly charged to the city. Taking into account respondent’s reputation and the isolated nature of the incident, we nonetheless find that a year’s actual suspension is appropriate in this case.

Respondent is hereby suspended from the practice of law for one year from the date of entry of this order. Costs taxed to the 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)

677 N.E.2d 1186, 78 Ohio St. 3d 309, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/office-of-disciplinary-counsel-v-holzer-ohio-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack