Legal Opinion

Cleveland Bar Ass'n v. Droe

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided November 13, 1996No. 96-1466PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Per curiam

We adopt the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the board. Our Ethical Considerations require that having undertaken representation, a lawyer should use proper care to safeguard the interests of his clients. Respondent not only failed to use proper care on behalf of his clients, but deceived them into believing that he was attending to their interests. We have repeatedly pointed out to the lawyers of Ohio that if an attorney expects to remain on the rolls of those permitted to practice in this state, he must demonstrate respect for his clients. See Disciplinary Counsel v. Trumbo…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. FowerbaughOhio Supreme Court · 1995
  2. Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. TrumboOhio Supreme Court · 1996
  3. Lake County Bar Ass'n v. SperosOhio Supreme Court · 1995
  4. Lorain County Bar Ass'n v. MotschOhio Supreme Court · 1993

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. ClarkOhio Supreme Court · 1997
  2. Cincinnati Bar Ass'n v. BaasOhio Supreme Court · 1997
  3. Cleveland Bar Assn. v. DroeOhio Supreme Court · 1996
  4. Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. BaasOhio Supreme Court · 1997
  5. Disciplinary Counsel v. ClarkOhio 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