Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Lowrey

Ohio Supreme Court

Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Lowrey

706 N.E.2d 758, 85 Ohio St. 3d 2, 1999 Ohio LEXIS 541

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedMarch 3, 1999

DocketNo. 98-2218

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 706 N.E.2d 758 (Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Lowrey) 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. Lowrey, 706 N.E.2d 758, 85 Ohio St. 3d 2, 1999 Ohio LEXIS 541 (Ohio 1999).

Pincite

Opinions

Per Curiam.

We adopt the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the board. Absent any mitigating factors, the appropriate sanction for misappropriation of client funds is disbarment. Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Belock (1998), 82 Ohio St.3d 98, 100, 694 N.E.2d 897, 899. Nevertheless, we give weight to the board’s recommendation of the lesser sanction of indefinite suspension based on the evidence of mitigation. See, e.g., Disciplinary Counsel v. Kurtz (1998), 82 Ohio St.3d 55, 57, 693 N.E.2d 1080, 1082, in which we held that an attorney’s misappropriation of funds while serving as testamentary trustee warranted adoption of the board’s recommendation of indefinite suspension, and the board relied on mitigating evidence of respondent’s general reputation for honesty and good character; see, also, Dayton Bar Assn. v. Shaman (1997), 80 Ohio St.3d 196, 201, 685 N.E.2d 518, 521 (mitigating evidence warranting lesser sanction of indefinite suspension included agreement to provide, restitution and attorney’s genuine remorse for misconduct involving misappropriation of client funds). Respondent is hereby indefinitely suspended from the practice of law in Ohio. Costs taxed to respondent.

Judgment accordingly.

[5]*5Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur. Moyer, C.J., Pfeifer and Cook, JJ., dissent.

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. Absent any mitigating factors, the appropriate sanction for misappropriation of client funds is disbarment. Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Belock (1998), 82 Ohio St.3d 98, 100, 694 N.E.2d 897, 899. Nevertheless, we give weight to the board’s recommendation of the lesser sanction of indefinite suspension based on the evidence of mitigation. See, e.g., Disciplinary Counsel v. Kurtz (1998), 82 Ohio St.3d 55, 57, 693 N.E.2d 1080, 1082, in which we held that an attorney’s misappropriation of funds while serving as testamentary trustee warranted adoption of the board’s recommendation of indefinite suspension, and the board relied on mitigating evidence of respondent’s general reputation for honesty and good character; see, also, Dayton Bar Assn. v. Shaman (1997), 80 Ohio St.3d 196, 201, 685 N.E.2d 518, 521 (mitigating evidence warranting lesser sanction of indefinite suspension included agreement to provide, restitution and attorney’s genuine remorse for misconduct involving misappropriation of client funds). Respondent is hereby indefinitely suspended from the practice of law in Ohio. Costs taxed to respondent.

Judgment accordingly.

[5]*5Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur. Moyer, C.J., Pfeifer and Cook, JJ., dissent.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

706 N.E.2d 758, 85 Ohio St. 3d 2, 1999 Ohio LEXIS 541, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/office-of-disciplinary-counsel-v-lowrey-ohio-1999.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack