Legal Opinion

Columbus Bar Ass'n v. Hamilton

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided March 29, 2000No. 99-2269PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Per curiam

We adopt the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the board. Absent any mitigating factors, disbarment is the appropriate sanction for an attorney’s misappropriation of client funds. Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Belock (1998), 82 Ohio St.3d 98, 100, 694 N.E.2d 897, 899. Here, however, we accord weight to the board’s recommendation of the lesser sanction of indefinite suspension based on the evidence of mitigation, i.e., no continued pattern of misconduct, restitution, and full cooperation with the disciplinary investigation. See, e.g., Disciplinary Counsel v. Lowrey (1999), 85 Ohio St.3d 2,…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Cleveland Bar Ass'n v. BelockOhio Supreme Court · 1998
  2. Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. BrownOhio Supreme Court · 1999
  3. Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. LowreyOhio Supreme Court · 1999
  4. Cleveland Bar Ass'n v. StebbinsOhio Supreme Court · 1999

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Disciplinary Counsel v. HunterOhio Supreme Court · 2005
  2. Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. SmithOhio Supreme Court · 2003
  3. Akron Bar Ass'n v. DietzOhio Supreme Court · 2006
  4. Columbus Bar Assn. v. HamiltonOhio Supreme Court · 2000
  5. Cleveland Bar Ass'n v. RusOhio Supreme Court · 2005

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

Powered by the Exa API