Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Wherry

Ohio Supreme Court

Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Wherry

87 Ohio St. 3d 584, 1999 WL 1216075

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedJanuary 19, 2000

DocketNo. 99-1556

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

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

Pincite

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

87 Ohio St. 3d 584, 1999 WL 1216075, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/office-of-disciplinary-counsel-v-wherry-ohio-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack