Legal Opinion

Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Bertram

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided March 17, 1999No. 98-2638PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Per curiam

We adopt the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the board. “The continuing public confidence in the judicial system and the bar requires that the strictest discipline be imposed in misappropriation cases.” Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Belock (1998), 82 Ohio St.3d 98, 100, 694 N.E.2d 897, 899. Therefore, as respondent concedes, disbarment is the appropriate sanction for respondent’s misappropriation of millions of dollars of his business’s escrow accounts for his personal benefit. See Disciplinary Counsel v. DiCarlantonio (1994), 68 Ohio St.3d 479, 628 N.E.2d 1355, in which we permanently…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Cleveland Bar Ass'n v. BelockOhio Supreme Court · 1998
  2. Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. DiCarlantonioOhio Supreme Court · 1994

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Iowa Supreme Court Attorney Disciplinary Board v. David M. NelsenSupreme Court of Iowa · 2011
  2. Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. LawlorOhio Supreme Court · 2001
  3. Disciplinary Counsel v. LawlorOhio Supreme Court · 2001
  4. Disciplinary Counsel v. SchwartzOhio Supreme Court · 2012

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

Powered by the Exa API