Legal Opinion

Columbus Bar Ass'n v. Sterner

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided December 18, 1996No. 96-436PublishedCited by 26 opinions

1Per curiam

The respondent misappropriated funds and neglected to safeguard the interests of his clients over a five-year period. The rules of our Code of Professional Responsibility are mandatory; they state the minimum level of conduct below which no lawyer can fall without being subject to disciplinary action. As the board found, respondent’s conduct clearly violated a number of these rules. We have said many times that the appropriate sanction for misappropriation of client funds and continued neglect of duty is disbarment. See, e.g., Mahoning Cty. Bar Assn. v. Michaels (1996), 75 Ohio St.3d 645,…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. ConnaughtonOhio Supreme Court · 1996
  2. South High Development, Ltd. v. Weiner, Lippe & Cromley Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1983
  3. Lake County Bar Ass'n v. OstranderOhio Supreme Court · 1975
  4. Mahoning County Bar Ass'n v. MichaelsOhio Supreme Court · 1996

3Cited by26 opinions

  1. Disciplinary Counsel v. JacksonOhio Supreme Court · 1998
  2. Cuyahoga County Bar Ass'n v. ChurillaOhio Supreme Court · 1997
  3. Toledo Bar Ass'n v. BattOhio Supreme Court · 1997
  4. Cuyahoga County Bar Ass'n v. BoychukOhio Supreme Court · 1997
  5. Disciplinary Counsel v. SquireOhio Supreme Court · 2011

21 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