Legal Opinion

Dayton Bar Ass'n v. Kinney

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided May 24, 2000No. 99-2238PublishedCited by 19 opinions

1Per curiam

We adopt the findings and conclusions of the board. In the past, we have held that an attorney who violates DR 1-102(A)(4) will actually be suspended from the practice of law for an appropriate period of time. Disciplinary Counsel v. Fowerbaugh (1995), 74 Ohio St.3d 187, 190, 658 N.E.2d 237, 240. However, we have also held that mitigating factors will warrant a lesser sanction in appropriate cases. Disciplinary Counsel v. Eisenberg (1998), 81 Ohio St.3d 295, 296, 690 N.E.2d 1282, 1283. In light of the fact that respondent’s action was an isolated incident and the outcome of his representation…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. FowerbaughOhio Supreme Court · 1995
  2. Disciplinary Counsel v. EisenbergOhio Supreme Court · 1998

3Cited by19 opinions

  1. Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. MarkijohnOhio Supreme Court · 2003
  2. Disciplinary Counsel v. FumichOhio Supreme Court · 2007
  3. Disciplinary Counsel v. HollandOhio Supreme Court · 2005
  4. Disciplinary Counsel v. CarrollOhio Supreme Court · 2005
  5. Dayton Bar Assn. v. KinneyOhio Supreme Court · 2000

14 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