Legal Opinion

Akron Bar Ass'n v. Hoffer

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided July 7, 1999No. 98-2640PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Per curiam

We adopt the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the

board. “[W]hen an attorney engages in a course of conduct that violates DR 1-102(A)(4), the attorney will be actually suspended from the practice of law for an appropriate period of time.” Disciplinary Counsel v. Fowerbaugh (1995), 74 Ohio St.3d 187, 191, 658 N.E.2d 237, 240. Here, respondent’s repeated deceit regarding the arbitration proceedings constitutes a “course of conduct” rather than an isolated act and consequently warrants an actual suspension from the practice of law. See, e.g., Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Caliman (1998), 83…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. FowerbaughOhio Supreme Court · 1995
  2. Cleveland Bar Ass'n v. KnowltonOhio Supreme Court · 1998
  3. Cincinnati Bar Ass'n v. CalimanOhio Supreme Court · 1998

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Akron Bar Ass'n v. HofferOhio Supreme Court · 2000
  2. Akron Bar Assn. v. HofferOhio Supreme Court · 1999
  3. Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. BrumbaughOhio Supreme Court · 2003
  4. Akron Bar Assn. v. HofferOhio Supreme Court · 2000
  5. Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. TreneffOhio Supreme Court · 2003

3 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