Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Wallace
729 N.E.2d 343, 89 Ohio St. 3d 113
Opinion
We adopt the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the board. Respondent’s repeated attempts to mislead his client constitute a course of conduct in violation of DR 1-102(A)(4), which warrants an actual suspension from the practice of law. Disciplinary Counsel v. Fowerbaugh (1995), 74 Ohio St.3d 187, 191, 658 N.E.2d 237, 240. Respondent is hereby suspended from the practice of law in Ohio for six months. Cost are taxed to respondent.
Judgment accordingly.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Wallace, 729 N.E.2d 343, 89 Ohio St. 3d 113 (Ohio 2000).
729 N.E.2d 343 (Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Wallace) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Disciplinary Counsel v. Wallace
2014 Ohio 1128 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2014)
Disciplinary Counsel v. Broeren
115 Ohio St. 3d 473 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2007)
Disciplinary Counsel v. Stollings
855 N.E.2d 479 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2006)
Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. DeLong
786 N.E.2d 1280 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2003)
Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Wallace
763 N.E.2d 1154 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2002)