Legal Opinion

Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Wallace

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided May 31, 2000No. 99-1866PublishedCited by 10 opinions

1Per curiam

We adopt the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the board. Respondent’s repeated attempts to mislead his client constitute a course of conduct in violation of DR 1-102(A)(4), which warrants an actual suspension from the practice of law. Disciplinary Counsel v. Fowerbaugh (1995), 74 Ohio St.3d 187, 191, 658 N.E.2d 237, 240. Respondent is hereby suspended from the practice of law in Ohio for six months. Cost are taxed to respondent.

Judgment accordingly.

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. FowerbaughOhio Supreme Court · 1995

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. Disciplinary Counsel v. BroerenOhio Supreme Court · 2007
  2. Disciplinary Counsel v. StollingsOhio Supreme Court · 2006
  3. Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. WallaceOhio Supreme Court · 2002
  4. Disciplinary Counsel v. WallaceOhio Supreme Court · 2001
  5. Disciplinary Counsel v. WallaceOhio Supreme Court · 2000

5 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