Legal Opinion

Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Crowley

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided August 21, 1996No. 96-918PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Per curiam

Having reviewed the record, we concur in the board’s findings and its recommendation. Respondent engaged in a course of dishonesty toward her clients, the Appelhans family, beginning with neglect and a lie, and continuing with lengthy inaction and elaborate deception to cover the lie, that we find particularly distasteful and damaging to the legal profession. See, e.g., Disciplinary Counsel v. Fowerbaugh (1995), 74 Ohio St.3d 187, 658 N.E.2d 237; Toledo Bar Assn. v. Dzienny (1995), 72 Ohio St.3d 173, 648 N.E.2d 499.

Therefore, we find it necessary to suspend respondent from the practice of…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. FowerbaughOhio Supreme Court · 1995
  2. Lake County Bar Ass'n v. SperosOhio Supreme Court · 1995
  3. Toledo Bar Ass'n v. DziennyOhio Supreme Court · 1995

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Dayton Bar Ass'n v. AndrewsOhio Supreme Court · 1997
  2. Disciplinary Counsel v. JaffeOhio Supreme Court · 2004
  3. Dayton Bar Assn. v. AndrewsOhio Supreme Court · 1997
  4. Disciplinary Counsel v. CrowleyOhio Supreme Court · 1996
  5. Cincinnati Bar Ass'n v. HarveyOhio Supreme Court · 1997

1 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