Legal Opinion

Mahoning County Bar Ass'n v. Michaels

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided June 26, 1996No. 96-433PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Per curiam

Our ethical standards explicitly require that having undertaken representation, a lawyer should use proper care to safeguard the interests of his client. In all three instances which are the subject of the relator’s complaint, clients placed their trust and confidence in the respondent, and respondent, by neglecting their interests, betrayed that trust. To compound these violations, in one instance respondent transferred his client’s property to a purchaser and either did not receive the purchase price, or did receive it and failed to distribute the funds to the mortgagee and to his client…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Ohio State Bar Ass'n v. WeaverOhio Supreme Court · 1975
  2. Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. ConnaughtonOhio Supreme Court · 1996
  3. Lake County Bar Ass'n v. OstranderOhio Supreme Court · 1975
  4. Bar Ass'n of Greater Cleveland v. McGarryOhio Supreme Court · 1979
  5. Mahoning County Bar Ass'n v. AlexanderOhio Supreme Court · 1970

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Columbus Bar Ass'n v. SternerOhio Supreme Court · 1996
  2. Toledo Bar Ass'n v. BattOhio Supreme Court · 1997
  3. Miami County Bar Ass'n v. HallowsOhio Supreme Court · 1997
  4. Columbus Bar Assn. v. SternerOhio Supreme Court · 1996
  5. Miami Cty. Bar Assn. v. HallowsOhio Supreme Court · 1997

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