Legal Opinion

Cincinnati Bar Ass'n v. Reisenfeld

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided November 18, 1998No. Nos. 98-382 and 98-383PublishedCited by 11 opinions

1Per curiam

We adopt the findings and conclusion of the board. In determining a sanction to be imposed, we consider the duty violated, the lawyer’s mental state, the injury caused, and the existence of mitigating circumstances. Warren Cty. Bar Assn. v. Bunce (1998), 81 Ohio St.3d 112, 115, 689 N.E.2d 566, 568, and cases cited therein.

We have previously said that “lawyers must not take a cavalier attitude toward their notary responsibilities.” Lorain Cty. Bar Assn. v. Papcke (1998), 81 Ohio St.3d 91, 93, 689 N.E.2d 549, 551. Respondents did notarize signatures that were inscribed in their presence, Sylvan…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. FowerbaughOhio Supreme Court · 1995
  2. Lorain County Bar Ass'n v. PapckeOhio Supreme Court · 1998
  3. Warren County Bar Ass'n v. BunceOhio Supreme Court · 1998
  4. Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. SimecekOhio Supreme Court · 1998

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. Columbus Bar Ass'n v. DoughertyOhio Supreme Court · 2005
  2. Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. ShafferOhio Supreme Court · 2003
  3. Disciplinary Counsel v. StaffordOhio Supreme Court · 2012
  4. Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. PapckeOhio Supreme Court · 2000
  5. Akron Bar Ass'n v. CoombsOhio Supreme Court · 1999

6 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