Legal Opinion

Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Galinas

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided July 24, 1996No. 96-435PublishedCited by 14 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtDouglas, J.

Our review of the record supports the board’s findings of misconduct and its recommendation that respondent be indefinitely suspended from the practice of law.

I

DR 2-106(A)

DR 2-106(A) provides: “A lawyer shall not enter into an agreement for, charge, or collect an illegal or clearly excessive fee.” The record fully supports the board’s finding that respondent violated DR 2-106(A) by attempting to collect $150,000 in attorney fees from Bogovich’s estate. There was no litigation surrounding the estate, the estate was not particularly complex, and respondent *90provided no extraordinary services in…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Krischbaum v. DillonOhio Supreme Court · 1991
  2. Mahoning County Bar Ass'n v. TheofilosOhio Supreme Court · 1988
  3. Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. SlavensOhio Supreme Court · 1992
  4. Cincinnati Bar Ass'n v. ClarkOhio Supreme Court · 1994

3Cited by14 opinions

  1. Attorney Grievance Commission v. SteinCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2003
  2. Attorney Grievance Commission v. BrookeCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2003
  3. Attorney Grievance Commission v. RuddyCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2009
  4. Attorney Grievance Commission v. SaridakisCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2007
  5. Toledo Bar Assn. v. CookOhio Supreme Court · 2002

9 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