Miami County Bar Ass'n v. Thompson
Ohio Supreme Court
1Per curiam
We accept the findings and conclusions of the board, but believe that a more stringent penalty is warranted. Respondent represented the lender in this case, but his arrangement with the parties enabled him to receive a fee from the borrower for each loan made by the lender. Despite the fact that the lender independently decided to make each loan, this arrangement put respondent in a position where he could profit by withholding information from or exercising influence on the lender.
A lawyer should avoid even the appearance of impropriety and the implication that his professional judgment on…
2Cited by6 opinions
- Stark Cty. Bar Assn. v. ButtacavoliOhio Supreme Court · 2002
- Stark County Bar Ass'n v. ButtacavoliOhio Supreme Court · 2002
- Miami Cty. Bar Assn. v. ThompsonOhio Supreme Court · 1997
- Toledo Bar Ass'n v. CandielloOhio Supreme Court · 1999
- Miami County Bar Ass'n v. ThompsonOhio Supreme Court · 1998
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.