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 Supreme Court·Decided July 23, 1986·No. D.D. No. 85-30·Published

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

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).

495 N.E.2d 426 (Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Lunsford) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Kornowski
492 N.E.2d 833 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1986)