Legal Opinion

Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Wherry

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided January 19, 2000No. 99-1556PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Per curiam

We adopt the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the board. As we noted in Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Belock (1998), 82 Ohio St.3d 98, 100, 694 N.E.2d 897, 899, “The continuing public confidence in the judicial system and the bar requires that the strictest discipline be imposed in misappropriation cases.” The appropriate sanction when a lawyer knowingly converts funds for the lawyer’s benefit is disbarment. Cf. Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Churilla (1997), 78 Ohio St.3d 348, 678 N.E.2d 515. In this case, respondent not only converted funds but also filed false reports with the probate…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Cleveland Bar Ass'n v. BelockOhio Supreme Court · 1998
  2. Cuyahoga County Bar Ass'n v. ChurillaOhio Supreme Court · 1997

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Medina County Bar Ass'n v. WoottonOhio Supreme Court · 2006
  2. Disciplinary Counsel v. WherryOhio Supreme Court · 2000
  3. Cuyahoga County Bar Ass'n v. LavinOhio Supreme Court · 2001
  4. Cleveland Metropolitan Bar Ass'n v. ParrishOhio Supreme Court · 2009

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

Powered by the Exa API