Richland County Bar Ass'n v. Wolf

678 N.E.2d 930, 78 Ohio St. 3d 476
Ohio Supreme Court·Decided May 21, 1997·No. No. 96-1990·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinions

Per Curiam.

We have reviewed the record and agree with the findings and conclusions of board. The board has determined that respondent should be sanctioned for his failure to be truthful with the detective investigating the allegations against him. Even though those allegations were based on misleading statements of a former client, respondent was not justified in lying to the detective.

Lying to an investigating officer by an attorney is not acceptable and cannot be justified by the emotional and extenuating circumstances in which respondent found himself. We agree with the recommendation of the board and hereby suspend respondent from the practice of law for six months with the entire suspension stayed. Costs taxed to respondent.

Judgment accordingly.

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

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Richland County Bar Ass'n v. Wolf, 678 N.E.2d 930, 78 Ohio St. 3d 476 (Ohio 1997).

678 N.E.2d 930 (Richland County Bar Ass'n v. Wolf) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Cincinnati Bar Ass'n v. Kenney
850 N.E.2d 60 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2006)
Richland Cty. Bar Assn. v. Wolf
1997 Ohio 60 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1997)