Legal Opinion

Lorain County Bar Ass'n v. Haynes

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided February 23, 2000No. 99-1889PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Per curiam

We adopt the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the board. Given respondent’s solitary act of neglect in an otherwise unblemished legal career and the lack of financial harm to his client, a public reprimand is warranted. See Lake Cty. Bar Assn. v. Smith (1999), 85 Ohio St.3d 402, 709 N.E.2d 116; Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Kates (1997), 78 Ohio St.3d 69, 676 N.E.2d 512; Stark Cty. Bar Assn. v. Tscholl (1991), 57 Ohio St.3d 211, 567 N.E.2d 265. Respondent is hereby publicly reprimanded. Costs taxed to respondent.

Judgment accordingly.

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer,…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Cleveland Bar Ass'n v. KatesOhio Supreme Court · 1997
  2. Lake County Bar Ass'n v. SmithOhio Supreme Court · 1999
  3. Stark County Bar Ass'n v. TschollOhio Supreme Court · 1991

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Lorain Cty. Bar Assn. v. Haynes (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court · 2020
  2. Lorain Cty. Bar Assn. v. HaynesOhio Supreme Court · 2000

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

Powered by the Exa API