Toledo Bar Ass'n v. Ishler

Ohio Supreme Court

Toledo Bar Ass'n v. Ishler

313 N.E.2d 818, 39 Ohio St. 2d 33, 68 Ohio Op. 2d 19, 1974 Ohio LEXIS 391

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedJuly 3, 1974

DocketD. D. No. 74-2

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 313 N.E.2d 818 (Toledo Bar Ass'n v. Ishler) 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

Toledo Bar Ass'n v. Ishler, 313 N.E.2d 818, 39 Ohio St. 2d 33, 68 Ohio Op. 2d 19, 1974 Ohio LEXIS 391 (Ohio 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The respondent could give no reason for either the failure of his check to clear or the use of the special account funds for other than the payment of same to clients. We conclude, from an examination of the transcript and exhibits, that the findings of the board have a thoroughly sound basis in fact; that respondent used for other purposes at least a substantial part of the funds belonging to his clients; that he issued a check with insufficient funds in his special account which was maintained as his trust account; and that there was an unreasonable delay on his part, after the check was returned as uncollectible, in paying to his clients the moneys due them. We cannot countenance such conduct in the face of this Supreme Court’s Rules for the Government of the Bar, as defined in Section 5 of Gov. R. Y and Canons 1 and 9 of the Code of Professional Responsibility as adopted by this court. It is our finding and judgment that the respondent was guilty of misconduct as alleged, and we confirm the recommendation of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline that the respondent, Loren G. Ishler, be indefinitely suspended from the practice of law in Ohio.

Report confirmed and judgment accordingly.

O’Neill, C. J., Herbert, Corrigan, Stern and Celebrezze, JJ., concur.

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

Per Curiam.

The respondent could give no reason for either the failure of his check to clear or the use of the special account funds for other than the payment of same to clients. We conclude, from an examination of the transcript and exhibits, that the findings of the board have a thoroughly sound basis in fact; that respondent used for other purposes at least a substantial part of the funds belonging to his clients; that he issued a check with insufficient funds in his special account which was maintained as his trust account; and that there was an unreasonable delay on his part, after the check was returned as uncollectible, in paying to his clients the moneys due them. We cannot countenance such conduct in the face of this Supreme Court’s Rules for the Government of the Bar, as defined in Section 5 of Gov. R. Y and Canons 1 and 9 of the Code of Professional Responsibility as adopted by this court. It is our finding and judgment that the respondent was guilty of misconduct as alleged, and we confirm the recommendation of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline that the respondent, Loren G. Ishler, be indefinitely suspended from the practice of law in Ohio.

Report confirmed and judgment accordingly.

O’Neill, C. J., Herbert, Corrigan, Stern and Celebrezze, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

313 N.E.2d 818, 39 Ohio St. 2d 33, 68 Ohio Op. 2d 19, 1974 Ohio LEXIS 391, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/toledo-bar-assn-v-ishler-ohio-1974.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack