Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Williams

Ohio Supreme Court

Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Williams

84 Ohio St. 3d 392

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedJanuary 13, 1999

DocketNo. 98-1797

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 84 Ohio St. 3d 392 (Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Williams) 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. Williams, 84 Ohio St. 3d 392 (Ohio 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

We adopt the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the board. Respondent’s misconduct, including his misuse of client funds and his federal felony conviction, represents a serious ethical breach that establishes his present unfitness to practice law in Ohio. See, e.g., Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Edwards (1998), 81 Ohio St.3d 72, 73, 689 N.E.2d 535, 536. The record, however, also exhibits his full cooperation with the law enforcement and disciplinary investigations, his willingness to make full restitution, his remorse, and his potential for rehabilitation. Under these circumstances, the recommendation of relator and the board of an indefinite suspension is appropriate. Disciplinary Counsel v. Stanford (1993), 66 Ohio St.3d 39, 41, 607 N.E.2d 830, 831; see, also, Disciplinary Counsel v. Yajko (1997), 77 Ohio St.3d 385, 674 N.E.2d 684 (attorney’s theft of funds from his law firm on twenty separate occasions, each involving a different client, warranted indefinite suspension).

Accordingly, respondent is indefinitely suspended from the practice of law in Ohio. As a condition of his reinstatement, respondent must make full restitution to the various financial institutions in accordance with his federal sentence, and he must also make full restitution to Ochieng. Upon reinstatement, a mentor appointed by the Columbus Bar Association shall work with respondent during the first year following his reinstatement.

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. Respondent’s misconduct, including his misuse of client funds and his federal felony conviction, represents a serious ethical breach that establishes his present unfitness to practice law in Ohio. See, e.g., Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Edwards (1998), 81 Ohio St.3d 72, 73, 689 N.E.2d 535, 536. The record, however, also exhibits his full cooperation with the law enforcement and disciplinary investigations, his willingness to make full restitution, his remorse, and his potential for rehabilitation. Under these circumstances, the recommendation of relator and the board of an indefinite suspension is appropriate. Disciplinary Counsel v. Stanford (1993), 66 Ohio St.3d 39, 41, 607 N.E.2d 830, 831; see, also, Disciplinary Counsel v. Yajko (1997), 77 Ohio St.3d 385, 674 N.E.2d 684 (attorney’s theft of funds from his law firm on twenty separate occasions, each involving a different client, warranted indefinite suspension).

Accordingly, respondent is indefinitely suspended from the practice of law in Ohio. As a condition of his reinstatement, respondent must make full restitution to the various financial institutions in accordance with his federal sentence, and he must also make full restitution to Ochieng. Upon reinstatement, a mentor appointed by the Columbus Bar Association shall work with respondent during the first year following his reinstatement.

Judgment accordingly.

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

84 Ohio St. 3d 392, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/office-of-disciplinary-counsel-v-williams-ohio-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack