Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Wise

707 N.E.2d 852, 85 Ohio St. 3d 169
Ohio Supreme Court·Decided March 24, 1999·No. No. 98-2213·Published·Cited by 10 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The normal sanction for misappropriation of client funds is disbarment. Disciplinary Counsel v. Connaughton (1996), 75 Ohio St.3d 644, 645, 665 N.E.2d 675, 676, and cases cited therein. However, on some occasions because of mitigating circumstances, we have given weight to a board recommendation of a lesser sanction. Disciplinary Counsel v. Kurtz (1998), 82 Ohio St.3d 55, 693 N.E.2d 1080. We do so in this case. Respondent is hereby indefinitely suspended 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. Wise, 707 N.E.2d 852, 85 Ohio St. 3d 169 (Ohio 1999).

707 N.E.2d 852 (Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Wise) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Disciplinary Counsel v. Scribner
2023 Ohio 4017 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2023)
Disciplinary Counsel v. Peterson
2012 Ohio 5719 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2012)
Disciplinary Counsel v. Wise
2009 Ohio 3725 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2009)
Disciplinary Counsel v. Kelly
901 N.E.2d 798 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2009)
Disciplinary Counsel v. Conese
2002 Ohio 4797 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2002)
Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Conese
776 N.E.2d 13 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2002)
Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Harris
2002 Ohio 2988 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2002)
Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Dixon
2002 Ohio 2490 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2002)