Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. McCrae

Ohio Supreme Court

Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. McCrae

664 N.E.2d 523, 75 Ohio St. 3d 511

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedMay 29, 1996

DocketNo. 95-2555

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 664 N.E.2d 523 (Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. McCrae) 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. McCrae, 664 N.E.2d 523, 75 Ohio St. 3d 511 (Ohio 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Upon review of the record, we concur with the board’s findings of fact, conclusions of law and recommendation. McCrae has repeatedly both in private and professional affairs ignored his responsibilities as an attorney. He has lied to banks about his personal financial affairs and he has lied under oath to a federal bankruptcy court.

The Ethical Considerations adopted as part of our Code of Professional Conduct state that a lawyer “should refrain from all illegal and morally reprehensible conduct. Because of his position in society, even minor violations of law by a lawyer may tend to lessen public confidente in the legal profession. Obedience to law exemplifies respect for law. To lawyers especially, respect for the law should be more than a platitude.” EC 1-5. This court expects all members of the bar to be guided by these considerations.

Accordingly, respondent, Charles Alexander McCrae, is indefinitely suspended from the practice of law. Costs taxed to the respondent.

Judgment accordingly.

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer and Stratton, JJ., concur. Cook, J., dissents and would disbar respondent.

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

Per Curiam.

Upon review of the record, we concur with the board’s findings of fact, conclusions of law and recommendation. McCrae has repeatedly both in private and professional affairs ignored his responsibilities as an attorney. He has lied to banks about his personal financial affairs and he has lied under oath to a federal bankruptcy court.

The Ethical Considerations adopted as part of our Code of Professional Conduct state that a lawyer “should refrain from all illegal and morally reprehensible conduct. Because of his position in society, even minor violations of law by a lawyer may tend to lessen public confidente in the legal profession. Obedience to law exemplifies respect for law. To lawyers especially, respect for the law should be more than a platitude.” EC 1-5. This court expects all members of the bar to be guided by these considerations.

Accordingly, respondent, Charles Alexander McCrae, is indefinitely suspended from the practice of law. Costs taxed to the respondent.

Judgment accordingly.

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer and Stratton, JJ., concur. Cook, J., dissents and would disbar respondent.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

664 N.E.2d 523, 75 Ohio St. 3d 511, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/office-of-disciplinary-counsel-v-mccrae-ohio-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack