Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Conese

{¶ 12} Although the majority opinion does not expressly say so, this case involves the misappropriation of client funds. In such cases, we must begin our consideration with the presumptive sanction of disbarment. Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Dixon, 95 Ohio St.3d 490, 2002-0hio-2490, 769 N.E.2d 816, at ¶ 15. On some occasions, however, we have given weight to a board’s recommendation of a lesser sanction because of mitigating circumstances. See, e.g., Disciplinary Counsel v. Wise (1999), 85 Ohio St.3d 169, 171, 707 N.E.2d 852.

{¶ 13} It is true that the record shows some mitigating circumstances in…