Toledo Bar Ass'n v. Wroblewski

512 N.E.2d 978, 32 Ohio St. 3d 162, 1987 Ohio LEXIS 364
Ohio Supreme Court·Decided August 26, 1987·No. D.D. No. 86-36·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This court finds that respondent violated the aforementioned Disciplinary Rules. The evidence, particularly respondent’s explanation of and admission to each charge, albeit apologetic, demonstrates a pattern of neglect and, at times, patent misrepresentation. Had respondent’s conduct gone undetected, his client’s estate would have been improperly administered at best, and at worst, not at all. It is noted that respondent has acquiesced in the board’s recommendation.

Accordingly, this court hereby adopts the board’s recommendation and respondent is hereby ordered indefinitely suspended from the practice of law in Ohio. Costs are taxed to respondent.

Judgment accordingly.

Moyer, C.J., Sweeney, Locher, Holmes, Douglas, Wright and H. Brown, JJ., concur.

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

Toledo Bar Ass'n v. Wroblewski, 512 N.E.2d 978, 32 Ohio St. 3d 162, 1987 Ohio LEXIS 364 (Ohio 1987).

512 N.E.2d 978 (Toledo Bar Ass'n v. Wroblewski) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Toledo Bar Ass'n v. Wroblewski
624 N.E.2d 1057 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1993)
In re Corrigan
546 N.E.2d 1315 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1989)