Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Ryan

Ohio Supreme Court

Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Ryan

730 N.E.2d 380, 89 Ohio St. 3d 240

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedJune 21, 2000

DocketNo. 99-2268

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 730 N.E.2d 380 (Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Ryan) 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. Ryan, 730 N.E.2d 380, 89 Ohio St. 3d 240 (Ohio 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

We adopt the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the board. Respondent engaged in a pattern of deceit, admitted to commingling client funds, neglected legal matters entrusted to him, and failed to cooperate in the investigations. Further, respondent has been previously disciplined by this [242]*242court for similar conduct. Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Ryan. We have held in the past that misuse of client funds and a pattern of neglect of client interests warrants disbarment. Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Wolosin (1999), 84 Ohio St.3d 401, 403, 704 N.E.2d 566, 568; Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Armon (1997), 78 Ohio St.3d 497, 500, 678 N.E.2d 1371, 1373. Respondent is hereby permanently disbarred from the practice of law in the state of 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, conclusions, and recommendation of the board. Respondent engaged in a pattern of deceit, admitted to commingling client funds, neglected legal matters entrusted to him, and failed to cooperate in the investigations. Further, respondent has been previously disciplined by this [242]*242court for similar conduct. Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Ryan. We have held in the past that misuse of client funds and a pattern of neglect of client interests warrants disbarment. Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Wolosin (1999), 84 Ohio St.3d 401, 403, 704 N.E.2d 566, 568; Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Armon (1997), 78 Ohio St.3d 497, 500, 678 N.E.2d 1371, 1373. Respondent is hereby permanently disbarred from the practice of law in the state of 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)

730 N.E.2d 380, 89 Ohio St. 3d 240, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/office-of-disciplinary-counsel-v-ryan-ohio-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack