Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Lunsford

Ohio Supreme Court

Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Lunsford

495 N.E.2d 426, 25 Ohio St. 3d 127, 25 Ohio B. 173, 1986 Ohio LEXIS 707

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedJuly 23, 1986

DocketD.D. No. 85-30

StatusPublished

This text of 495 N.E.2d 426 (Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Lunsford) 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. Lunsford, 495 N.E.2d 426, 25 Ohio St. 3d 127, 25 Ohio B. 173, 1986 Ohio LEXIS 707 (Ohio 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Upon review of the record, the court finds that respondent has violated DR 6401(A)(3), neglecting a legal matter entrusted to him; DR 7401(A)(2) and (3), failing to carry out a contract of employment to provide professional services and prejudicing a client during the course of a professional relationship; DR 1402(A)(6), engaging in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law; and Gov. Bar R. V(4), neglecting or refusing to assist in an investigation undertaken by the Disciplinary Counsel.

As we stated in Disciplinary Counsel v. Kornowski (1986), 24 Ohio St. 3d 50, 53, “* * * respondent’s cavalier attitude in failing to appear at any stage of this disciplinary proceeding should not be countenanced, and * * * his [misconduct] * * * in the representation of his clients * * * must be accorded appropriate punishment.”

The court adopts the recommendation of the board, and the respondent is hereby indefinitely suspended from the practice of law.

Judgment accordingly.

Celebrezze, C.J., Sweeney, Locher, Holmes, C. Brown, Douglas and Wright, JJ., concur.

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

Per Curiam.

Upon review of the record, the court finds that respondent has violated DR 6401(A)(3), neglecting a legal matter entrusted to him; DR 7401(A)(2) and (3), failing to carry out a contract of employment to provide professional services and prejudicing a client during the course of a professional relationship; DR 1402(A)(6), engaging in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law; and Gov. Bar R. V(4), neglecting or refusing to assist in an investigation undertaken by the Disciplinary Counsel.

As we stated in Disciplinary Counsel v. Kornowski (1986), 24 Ohio St. 3d 50, 53, “* * * respondent’s cavalier attitude in failing to appear at any stage of this disciplinary proceeding should not be countenanced, and * * * his [misconduct] * * * in the representation of his clients * * * must be accorded appropriate punishment.”

The court adopts the recommendation of the board, and the respondent is hereby indefinitely suspended from the practice of law.

Judgment accordingly.

Celebrezze, C.J., Sweeney, Locher, Holmes, C. Brown, Douglas and Wright, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

495 N.E.2d 426, 25 Ohio St. 3d 127, 25 Ohio B. 173, 1986 Ohio LEXIS 707, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/office-of-disciplinary-counsel-v-lunsford-ohio-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack