Legal Opinion

Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Boylan

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided March 17, 1999No. 98-2637PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Per curiam

We adopt the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the board. The sanction of an indefinite suspension from the practice of law “is especially fitting * * * where neglect of a legal matter is coupled with a failure to cooperate in the ensuing disciplinary investigation.” Warren Cty. Bar Assn. v. Lieser (1997), 79 Ohio St.3d 488, 490, 683 N.E.2d 1148, 1149; see, also, Akron Bar Assn. v. Barnett (1997), 80 Ohio St.3d 269, 685 N.E.2d 1230. The record establishes that respondent exhibited a cavalier attitude toward both the representation of his client and the ensuing disciplinary…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Warren County Bar Ass'n v. LieserOhio Supreme Court · 1997
  2. Akron Bar Ass'n v. BarnettOhio Supreme Court · 1997

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Cleveland Bar Ass'n v. JudgeOhio Supreme Court · 2002
  2. Disciplinary Counsel v. HendersonOhio Supreme Court · 1999
  3. Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. HendersonOhio Supreme Court · 1999
  4. Disciplinary Counsel v. FordOhio Supreme Court · 2012
  5. Disciplinary Counsel v. HallquistOhio Supreme Court · 2011

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