Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. King

Ohio Supreme Court

Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. King

660 N.E.2d 1160, 74 Ohio St. 3d 612

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedFebruary 28, 1996

DocketNo. 95-378

StatusPublished

Cited by10 cases

This text of 660 N.E.2d 1160 (Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. King) 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. King, 660 N.E.2d 1160, 74 Ohio St. 3d 612 (Ohio 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

We concur with the board’s findings that respondent violated DR 6-101(A)(3) and 1-102(A)(4). However, in view of respondent’s deliberately false statements to his client, we find it appropriate to suspend respondent from the practice of law for a specific period. “Dishonesty toward a client, whose interests are the attorney’s duty to protect, is reprehensible.” Lake Cty. Bar Assn. v. Speros (1995), 73 Ohio St.3d 101, 104, 652 N.E.2d 681, 683. Additionally, respondent’s prior disciplinary record reinforces our decision to impose an actual suspension. “Prior disciplinary offenses shall be considered as a factor that may justify an increase in the degree of discipline * * * for subsequent misconduct.” Gov.Bar R. V(6)(C).

Accordingly, respondent is suspended from the practice of law in Ohio for six months. Costs taxed to respondent.

Judgment accordingly.

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Wright, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney and Cook, JJ., concur. Pfeifer, J., dissents and would adopt the recommendations of the panel and the board of a two-year suspension, stayed, with probation.

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

Per Curiam.

We concur with the board’s findings that respondent violated DR 6-101(A)(3) and 1-102(A)(4). However, in view of respondent’s deliberately false statements to his client, we find it appropriate to suspend respondent from the practice of law for a specific period. “Dishonesty toward a client, whose interests are the attorney’s duty to protect, is reprehensible.” Lake Cty. Bar Assn. v. Speros (1995), 73 Ohio St.3d 101, 104, 652 N.E.2d 681, 683. Additionally, respondent’s prior disciplinary record reinforces our decision to impose an actual suspension. “Prior disciplinary offenses shall be considered as a factor that may justify an increase in the degree of discipline * * * for subsequent misconduct.” Gov.Bar R. V(6)(C).

Accordingly, respondent is suspended from the practice of law in Ohio for six months. Costs taxed to respondent.

Judgment accordingly.

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Wright, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney and Cook, JJ., concur. Pfeifer, J., dissents and would adopt the recommendations of the panel and the board of a two-year suspension, stayed, with probation.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

660 N.E.2d 1160, 74 Ohio St. 3d 612, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/office-of-disciplinary-counsel-v-king-ohio-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack