Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Washington

Ohio Supreme Court

Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Washington

679 N.E.2d 271, 78 Ohio St. 3d 541

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedJune 11, 1997

DocketNo. 96-2787

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 679 N.E.2d 271 (Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Washington) 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. Washington, 679 N.E.2d 271, 78 Ohio St. 3d 541 (Ohio 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

We adopt the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the board. By engaging a co-counsel without determining whether he would be able to perform his duties, respondent neglected the legal matter entrusted to him by the court. By being less than honest in his reasons for time extensions, respondent engaged in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice. [543]*543Respondent is hereby suspended from the practice of law in Ohio for six months. Costs are taxed to respondent.

Judgment accordingly.

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

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. By engaging a co-counsel without determining whether he would be able to perform his duties, respondent neglected the legal matter entrusted to him by the court. By being less than honest in his reasons for time extensions, respondent engaged in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice. [543]*543Respondent is hereby suspended from the practice of law in Ohio for six months. Costs are taxed to respondent.

Judgment accordingly.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

679 N.E.2d 271, 78 Ohio St. 3d 541, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/office-of-disciplinary-counsel-v-washington-ohio-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack