Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Saumer

Ohio Supreme Court

Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Saumer

715 N.E.2d 124, 86 Ohio St. 3d 312

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedAugust 25, 1999

DocketNo. 99-832

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 715 N.E.2d 124 (Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Saumer) 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. Saumer, 715 N.E.2d 124, 86 Ohio St. 3d 312 (Ohio 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

We adopt the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the board. Generally, neglect of legal matters and a failure to cooperate in the ensuing investigation warrant an indefinite suspension. Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Rollins (1999), 84 Ohio St.3d 408, 410, 704 N.E.2d 1210, 1211. There are no circumstances that require a departure from the foregoing rule in this case. As the board concluded, respondent’s concealment of assets, neglect, and abandonment of the estate case compounded by his total lack of cooperation with and respect for the disciplinary process require an indefinite suspension. Respondent is hereby indefinitely suspended 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, conclusions, and recommendation of the board. Generally, neglect of legal matters and a failure to cooperate in the ensuing investigation warrant an indefinite suspension. Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Rollins (1999), 84 Ohio St.3d 408, 410, 704 N.E.2d 1210, 1211. There are no circumstances that require a departure from the foregoing rule in this case. As the board concluded, respondent’s concealment of assets, neglect, and abandonment of the estate case compounded by his total lack of cooperation with and respect for the disciplinary process require an indefinite suspension. Respondent is hereby indefinitely suspended 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 124, 86 Ohio St. 3d 312, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/office-of-disciplinary-counsel-v-saumer-ohio-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack