Toledo Bar Ass'n v. Hayes

708 N.E.2d 201, 85 Ohio St. 3d 336
Ohio Supreme Court·Decided April 7, 1999·No. No. 98-2661·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

We adopt the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the board. Respondent’s pattern of neglecting entrusted legal matters coupled with his unwillingness to cooperate in related disciplinary investigations demonstrates his present unfitness to practice law and warrants an indefinite suspension from the practice of law. See Warren Cty. Bar Assn. v. Lieser (1997), 79 Ohio St.3d 488, 490, 683 N.E.2d 1148, 1149; Columbus Bar Assn. v. Emerson (1999), 84 Ohio St.3d 375, 378, 704 N.E.2d 238, 240. Respondent is hereby indefinitely suspended from the practice of law in Ohio. Further, because of his history of alcohol abuse, any readmission to the practice of law in Ohio is conditioned upon his entering into and complying with the conditions of a contract with the Ohio Lawyers Assistance Program. Costs 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

Toledo Bar Ass'n v. Hayes, 708 N.E.2d 201, 85 Ohio St. 3d 336 (Ohio 1999).

708 N.E.2d 201 (Toledo Bar Ass'n v. Hayes) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Disciplinary Counsel v. Hiltbrand
110 Ohio St. 3d 214 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2006)
Toledo Bar Assn. v. Hayes
1999 Ohio 375 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1999)