Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Roberts

Ohio Supreme Court

Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Roberts

715 N.E.2d 1138, 86 Ohio St. 3d 551

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedSeptember 8, 1999

DocketNo. 99-837

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 715 N.E.2d 1138 (Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Roberts) 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. Roberts, 715 N.E.2d 1138, 86 Ohio St. 3d 551 (Ohio 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

We adopt the findings of the board except those referring to respondent’s Hamilton County contempt of court and bench warrant for his arrest. While there is evidence of such misconduct in the Kentucky litigation, neither the complaint nor the motions for default judgment and attached exhibits support these findings for the Hamilton County case.

Nevertheless, we adopt the conclusions and recommendation of the board. “ ‘The continuing public confidence in the judicial system and the bar requires that the strictest discipline be imposed in misappropriation cases.’ ” See Disciplinary Counsel v. Romaniw (1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 462, 464, 700 N.E.2d 858, 859, quoting Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Belock (1998), 82 Ohio St.3d 98, 100, 694 N.E.2d 897, 899. Respondent converted funds to which he was not entitled for his personal use and blatantly disregarded court orders in litigation prompted by his wrongful appropriation of these funds. No mitigation circumstances exist, and disbarment is the appropriate sanction. Respondent is hereby permanently disbarred from the practice of law in Ohio. Costs taxed to respondent.

Judgment accordingly.

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.

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

Per Curiam.

We adopt the findings of the board except those referring to respondent’s Hamilton County contempt of court and bench warrant for his arrest. While there is evidence of such misconduct in the Kentucky litigation, neither the complaint nor the motions for default judgment and attached exhibits support these findings for the Hamilton County case.

Nevertheless, we adopt the conclusions and recommendation of the board. “ ‘The continuing public confidence in the judicial system and the bar requires that the strictest discipline be imposed in misappropriation cases.’ ” See Disciplinary Counsel v. Romaniw (1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 462, 464, 700 N.E.2d 858, 859, quoting Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Belock (1998), 82 Ohio St.3d 98, 100, 694 N.E.2d 897, 899. Respondent converted funds to which he was not entitled for his personal use and blatantly disregarded court orders in litigation prompted by his wrongful appropriation of these funds. No mitigation circumstances exist, and disbarment is the appropriate sanction. Respondent is hereby permanently disbarred from the practice of law in Ohio. Costs taxed to respondent.

Judgment accordingly.

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

715 N.E.2d 1138, 86 Ohio St. 3d 551, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/office-of-disciplinary-counsel-v-roberts-ohio-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack