Legal Opinion

Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Sigall

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided November 7, 1984No. D.D. No. 84-10PublishedCited by 20 opinions

1Per curiam

All of the incidents involved in this disciplinary action show a continuing pattern of neglect on the part of respondent. When an attorney enters into an attorney-client relationship he must be diligent in the performance of the services for which he has been retained. A failure on the part of an attorney to do the work for which a client has paid him a fee is tantamount to theft of that fee from the client.

*18When faced with similar cases in the past, this court has suspended attorneys for periods of from one year to an indefinite period for neglect of duty in legal matters entrusted to them.…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Ohio State Bar Ass'n v. RenshawOhio Supreme Court · 1977

3Cited by20 opinions

  1. Cincinnati Bar Ass'n v. WeaverOhio Supreme Court · 2004
  2. Columbus Bar Ass'n v. MousheyOhio Supreme Court · 2004
  3. Warren County Bar Ass'n v. LieserOhio Supreme Court · 1997
  4. Warren Cty. Bar Assn. v. LieserOhio Supreme Court · 1997
  5. Lorain County Bar Ass'n v. FernandezOhio Supreme Court · 2003

15 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