Legal Opinion

Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Lawrence

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided July 5, 1995No. 95-371PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Per curiam

We agree that respondent violated DR 1-102(A)(4) and (6), 6-101(A)(3), and 9-102(A), as determined by the board. However, our review of this record prevents us from concurring in the recommendation to impose probation in lieu of a full one-year suspension from the practice of law.

In conceding his misconduct, respondent analogized his wrongdoing to cases in which attorneys commingled their funds over time with funds belonging to their clients, see Columbus Bar Assn. v. Larson (1991), 60 Ohio St.3d 133, 573 N.E.2d 1055, or in which attorneys neglected several clients, see Columbus Bar Assn. v.…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Columbus Bar Ass'n v. NicholsOhio Supreme Court · 1991
  2. Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. NicholsOhio Supreme Court · 1993
  3. Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. ShawOhio Supreme Court · 1984
  4. Columbus Bar Ass'n v. LarsonOhio Supreme Court · 1991
  5. Mahoning County Bar Ass'n v. CarsonOhio Supreme Court · 1994

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Cuyahoga County Bar Ass'n v. LawrenceOhio Supreme Court · 2003
  2. Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. LawrenceOhio Supreme Court · 1996
  3. Disciplinary Counsel v. LawrenceOhio Supreme Court · 1995

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

Powered by the Exa API