Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Ball
Ohio Supreme Court
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
- Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. OglesbyOhio Supreme Court · 1992
- Cincinnati Bar Ass'n v. EbelOhio Supreme Court · 1983
- Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. GiegelOhio Supreme Court · 1990
3Cited by22 opinions
- Attorney Grievance Commission v. ZuckermanCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2005
- Cuyahoga County Bar Ass'n v. HardimanOhio Supreme Court · 2003
- Spencer v. SteinmanDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1998
- Community Mutual Insurance v. TracyOhio Supreme Court · 1995
- Disciplinary Counsel v. HutchinsOhio Supreme Court · 2004
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.