Legal Opinion

Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Williams

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided January 13, 1999No. 98-1797PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Per curiam

We adopt the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the board. Respondent’s misconduct, including his misuse of client funds and his federal felony conviction, represents a serious ethical breach that establishes his present unfitness to practice law in Ohio. See, e.g., Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Edwards (1998), 81 Ohio St.3d 72, 73, 689 N.E.2d 535, 536. The record, however, also exhibits his full cooperation with the law enforcement and disciplinary investigations, his willingness to make full restitution, his remorse, and his potential for rehabilitation. Under these circumstances, the…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. YajkoOhio Supreme Court · 1997
  2. Cincinnati Bar Ass'n v. EdwardsOhio Supreme Court · 1998
  3. Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. StanfordOhio Supreme Court · 1993

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Supreme Court of Ohio v. Bertche (In Re Bertsche)United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Ohio · 2000

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

Powered by the Exa API