Legal Opinion

Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Wise

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided March 24, 1999No. 98-2213PublishedCited by 10 opinions

1Per 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,…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. ConnaughtonOhio Supreme Court · 1996
  2. Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. KurtzOhio Supreme Court · 1998

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. Cleveland Bar Assn. v. DixonOhio Supreme Court · 2002
  2. Disciplinary Counsel v. KellyOhio Supreme Court · 2009
  3. Cleveland Bar Assn. v. HarrisOhio Supreme Court · 2002
  4. Cleveland Bar Ass'n v. DixonOhio Supreme Court · 2002
  5. Disciplinary Counsel v. PetersonOhio Supreme Court · 2012

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API