Legal Opinion

Cleveland Bar Ass'n v. Herzog

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided November 10, 1999No. 99-1157PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Per curiam

We affirm the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the board. “ ‘[Wjhen an attorney engages in a course of conduct resulting in a *217finding that the attorney has violated 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. Eisenberg (1998), 81 Ohio St.3d 295, 296, 690 N.E.2d 1282, 1283, quoting Disciplinary Counsel v. Fowerbaugh (1995), 74 Ohio St.3d 187, 190, 658 N.E.2d 237, 240.

Respondent’s conduct throughout the bankruptcy proceeding, including his misrepresentations, lack of candor, and…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. FowerbaughOhio Supreme Court · 1995
  2. Toledo Bar Ass'n v. BattOhio Supreme Court · 1997
  3. Disciplinary Counsel v. EisenbergOhio Supreme Court · 1998

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Disciplinary Counsel v. RohrerOhio Supreme Court · 2009
  2. Toledo Bar Assn. v. Yoder (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court · 2020
  3. Disciplinary Counsel v. Spinazze (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court · 2020
  4. Cleveland Metropolitan Bar Association v. DonchatzOhio Supreme Court · 2017
  5. Cleveland Bar Assn. v. HerzogOhio Supreme Court · 1999

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

Powered by the Exa API