Legal Opinion

Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Papcke

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided February 23, 2000No. 99-1888PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Per curiam

We adopt the findings of fact and conclusions of law of the board. “ ‘[W]hen an attorney engages in a course of conduct resulting in a finding that the attorney has violated DR 1-102(A)(4), the attorney will be actually suspended from the practice of law for an appropriate period of time.’ ” Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Knowlton (1998), 81 Ohio St.3d 76, 78, 689 N.E.2d 538, 539, quoting Disciplinary Counsel v. Fowerbaugh (1995), 74 Ohio St.3d 187, 190, 658 N.E.2d 237, 240.

Respondent engaged in a course of conduct involving several clients over a significant period of time in which she notarized…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. FowerbaughOhio Supreme Court · 1995
  2. Cleveland Bar Ass'n v. KnowltonOhio Supreme Court · 1998
  3. Cincinnati Bar Ass'n v. ReisenfeldOhio Supreme Court · 1998

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Cleveland v. BradshawDistrict Court, N.D. Ohio · 2014
  2. Cincinnati Bar Ass'n v. BuckleyOhio Supreme Court · 2002
  3. Cuyahoga County Bar Ass'n v. LawrenceOhio Supreme Court · 2003
  4. Disciplinary Counsel v. PapckeOhio Supreme Court · 2000
  5. Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. PapckeOhio Supreme Court · 2001

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

Powered by the Exa API