Legal Opinion

Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Ball

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided September 22, 1993No. 93-388PublishedCited by 22 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtMoyer, C.J.

DR 6-101 (A)(3) states that “A lawyer shall not * * * neglect a legal matter entrusted to him.” This court has previously interpreted this rule to warrant sanction when an attorney neglects to file necessary legal papers for clients and answer clients’ inquiries, fails to prosecute actions on a client’s behalf, and mismanages probate proceedings and guardianships. Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Ebel (1983), 5 Ohio St.3d 145, 5 OBR 277, 449 N.E.2d 456; Disciplinary Counsel v. Giegel (1990), 56 Ohio St.3d 58, 564 N.E.2d 84; Disciplinary Counsel v. Oglesby (1992), 64 Ohio St.3d 39, 591 N.E.2d 1214.…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. OglesbyOhio Supreme Court · 1992
  2. Cincinnati Bar Ass'n v. EbelOhio Supreme Court · 1983
  3. Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. GiegelOhio Supreme Court · 1990

3Cited by22 opinions

  1. Attorney Grievance Commission v. ZuckermanCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2005
  2. Cuyahoga County Bar Ass'n v. HardimanOhio Supreme Court · 2003
  3. Spencer v. SteinmanDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1998
  4. Community Mutual Insurance v. TracyOhio Supreme Court · 1995
  5. Disciplinary Counsel v. HutchinsOhio Supreme Court · 2004

17 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