Cincinnati Bar Ass'n v. Harvey
Ohio Supreme Court
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
- Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. TrumboOhio Supreme Court · 1996
- Disciplinary Counsel v. TrumboOhio Supreme Court · 1996
- Dayton Bar Ass'n v. AndrewsOhio Supreme Court · 1997
- Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. CrowleyOhio Supreme Court · 1996
- In re Application of Ohio Power Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 2024
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. HarveyOhio Supreme Court · 1997