Legal Opinion

Toledo Bar Ass'n v. Kramer

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided July 12, 2000No. 00-500PublishedCited by 14 opinions

1Per curiam

After review of the record, we adopt the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the board. In imposing a sanction, we must consider the duty violated, the attorney’s mental state, the injury caused, and whether aggravating or mitigating factors exist. See Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Boychuk (1997), 79 Ohio St.3d 93, 679 N.E.2d 1081.

*323Relator did prove by clear and convincing evidence that respondent had violated DR 1-102(A)(4), and 9-102(B)(3) and (4). However, at the time of the misconduct, respondent was seeing a counselor for depression due to his father’s death. Respondent also settled…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. FowerbaughOhio Supreme Court · 1995
  2. Disciplinary Counsel v. EisenbergOhio Supreme Court · 1998
  3. Cuyahoga County Bar Ass'n v. BoychukOhio Supreme Court · 1997

3Cited by14 opinions

  1. Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. StatzerOhio Supreme Court · 2003
  2. Dayton Bar Ass'n v. GerrenOhio Supreme Court · 2004
  3. Disciplinary Counsel v. BlaszakOhio Supreme Court · 2004
  4. Disciplinary Counsel v. ClaflinOhio Supreme Court · 2005
  5. Disciplinary Counsel v. FolwellOhio Supreme Court · 2011

9 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