Legal Opinion

Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Ryan

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided June 21, 2000No. 99-2268PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Per curiam

We adopt the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the board. Respondent engaged in a pattern of deceit, admitted to commingling client funds, neglected legal matters entrusted to him, and failed to cooperate in the investigations. Further, respondent has been previously disciplined by this *242court for similar conduct. Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Ryan. We have held in the past that misuse of client funds and a pattern of neglect of client interests warrants disbarment. Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Wolosin (1999), 84 Ohio St.3d 401, 403, 704 N.E.2d 566, 568; Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Armon (1997), 78…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Cleveland Bar Ass'n v. ArmonOhio Supreme Court · 1997
  2. Cincinnati Bar Ass'n v. WolosinOhio Supreme Court · 1999

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Disciplinary Counsel v. RyanOhio Supreme Court · 2000

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

Powered by the Exa API