Legal Opinion

Cincinnati Bar Ass'n v. Harvey

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided September 24, 1997No. 97-811PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Per curiam

We adopt the findings and conclusions of the board. An attorney’s failure to perform legal services for which he has been engaged and then lying to a client about the status of the case has warranted suspension. Dayton Bar Assn. v. Andrews (1997), 79 Ohio St.3d 109, 679 N.E.2d 1093; Disciplinary Counsel v. Crowley (1996), 176 Ohio St.3d 365, 667 N.E.2d 1183; Disciplinary Counsel v. Trumbo (1996), 76 Ohio St.3d 369, 667 N.E.2d 1186. In this case respondent compounded his neglect of a client by lying and attempting to mislead relator in its investigation. Unlike Andrews, Crowley, and Trumbo, we…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. TrumboOhio Supreme Court · 1996
  2. Disciplinary Counsel v. TrumboOhio Supreme Court · 1996
  3. Dayton Bar Ass'n v. AndrewsOhio Supreme Court · 1997
  4. Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. CrowleyOhio Supreme Court · 1996
  5. In re Application of Ohio Power Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 2024

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. HarveyOhio Supreme Court · 1997

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API