Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Wherry

87 Ohio St. 3d 584, 1999 WL 1216075
Ohio Supreme Court·Decided January 19, 2000·No. No. 99-1556·Published·Cited by 7 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

We adopt the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the board. As we noted in Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Belock (1998), 82 Ohio St.3d 98, 100, 694 N.E.2d 897, 899, “The continuing public confidence in the judicial system and the bar requires that the strictest discipline be imposed in misappropriation cases.” The appropriate sanction when a lawyer knowingly converts funds for the lawyer’s benefit is disbarment. Cf. Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Churilla (1997), 78 Ohio St.3d 348, 678 N.E.2d 515. In this case, respondent not only converted funds but also filed false reports with the probate court.

Respondent is hereby permanently disbarred from the practice of law in Ohio. Costs are 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

Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Wherry, 87 Ohio St. 3d 584, 1999 WL 1216075 (Ohio 2000).

87 Ohio St. 3d 584 (Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Wherry) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Cleveland Metropolitan Bar Ass'n v. Parrish
2009 Ohio 1969 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2009)
Medina County Bar Ass'n v. Wootton
110 Ohio St. 3d 179 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2006)
Cuyahoga County Bar Ass'n v. Lavin
748 N.E.2d 1100 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2001)
Disciplinary Counsel v. Wherry
2000 Ohio 254 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2000)