Legal Opinion

Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Henderson

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided November 10, 1999No. 99-1118PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Per curiam

We adopt the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the board. The sanction of an indefinite suspension from the practice of law “ ‘is especially fitting * * * where neglect of a legal matter is coupled with a failure to cooperate in the ensuing disciplinary investigation.’ ” Disciplinary Counsel v. Boylan (1999), 85 Ohio St.3d 115, 117, 707 N.E.2d 465, 467, quoting Warren Cty. Bar Assn. v. Lieser (1997), 79 Ohio St.3d 488, 490, 683 N.E.2d 1148, 1149. Here, like the attorney in Boylan, respondent exhibited a cavalier attitude toward the representation of a client and the ensuing…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Warren County Bar Ass'n v. LieserOhio Supreme Court · 1997
  2. Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. BoylanOhio Supreme Court · 1999

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Cleveland Bar Ass'n v. JudgeOhio Supreme Court · 2002
  2. Stark County Bar Ass'n v. MarosanOhio Supreme Court · 2005
  3. Disciplinary Counsel v. HendersonOhio Supreme Court · 1999
  4. Lorain County Bar Ass'n v. FernandezOhio Supreme Court · 2000
  5. Columbus Bar Ass'n v. MousheyOhio Supreme Court · 2002

2 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