Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Kurtz
Ohio Supreme Court
1Per curiam
We accept the board’s findings of fact and agree with its conclusion that respondent’s conduct violated DR 1-102(A)(4), 5-101(A)(l), and 9-102(A).
As the probate court found, respondent engaged in self-dealing and violated his fiduciary duty as a trustee. We reject respondent’s characterization of these transfers from the Korda estate to his business account as “loans,” not only because the contemporaneous notations that respondent placed on the checks indicate otherwise, but also because respondent, as fiduciary for the trust, did not receive documentation evidencing that any of the fifty-two…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. ConnaughtonOhio Supreme Court · 1996
- Miami County Bar Ass'n v. HallowsOhio Supreme Court · 1997
3Cited by13 opinions
- Cleveland Bar Assn. v. DixonOhio Supreme Court · 2002
- Disciplinary Counsel v. KellyOhio Supreme Court · 2009
- Cleveland Bar Ass'n v. HarrisOhio Supreme Court · 2002
- Cleveland Bar Assn. v. HarrisOhio Supreme Court · 2002
- Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. WiseOhio Supreme Court · 1999
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.