Legal Opinion

Toledo Bar Ass'n v. Batt

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided April 16, 1997No. 96-1436PublishedCited by 18 opinions

1Per curiam

The appropriate sanction for misappropriation of client funds is disbarment. Columbus Bar Assn. v. Sterner (1996), 77 Ohio St.3d 164, 167, 672 N.E.2d 633, 635; Mahoning Cty. Bar Assn. v. Michaels (1996), 75 Ohio St.3d 645, 647, 665 N.E.2d 676, 677; Disciplinary Counsel v. Connaughton (1996), 75 Ohio St.3d 644, 645, 665 N.E.2d 675, 676. Here respondent obtained fees by padding client bills with hours not worked. These actions, which were the basis for respondent’s criminal conviction for theft in office and grand theft, are equivalent to misappropriation of the funds of a client and alone…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. FowerbaughOhio Supreme Court · 1995
  2. Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. TrumboOhio Supreme Court · 1996
  3. Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. GreeneOhio Supreme Court · 1995
  4. Columbus Bar Ass'n v. SternerOhio Supreme Court · 1996
  5. Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. ConnaughtonOhio Supreme Court · 1996

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by18 opinions

  1. Attorney Grievance Commission v. HessCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1999
  2. Disciplinary Counsel v. RohrerOhio Supreme Court · 2009
  3. Disciplinary Counsel v. HollandOhio Supreme Court · 2005
  4. Toledo Bar Assn. v. StahlbushOhio Supreme Court · 2010
  5. Cuyahoga County Bar Ass'n v. OkochaOhio Supreme Court · 1998

13 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