Legal Opinion

Cincinnati Bar Ass'n v. Randolph

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided April 7, 1999No. 98-2685PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Per curiam

We adopt the findings, conclusions, and x-ecommendation of the board. A public reprimand is the appropiiate sanction for respondent’s isolated act of misconduct. See Akron Bar Assn. v. Naumoff (1991), 62 Ohio St.3d 72, 578 N.E.2d 452, and Mahoning Cty. Bar Assn. v. Gilmartin (1991), 62 Ohio St.3d 10, 577 N.E.2d 350, where we publicly reprimanded and ordered attorneys to make full restitution to clients for violating DR 2-106(A). As the board found, once respondent became aware of his error in retaining a fee from the burial fee account, he made complete restitution to the beneficiaries of the…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Mahoning County Bar Ass'n v. GilmartinOhio Supreme Court · 1991
  2. Akron Bar Ass'n v. NaumoffOhio Supreme Court · 1991

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Disciplinary Counsel v. AgopianOhio Supreme Court · 2006
  2. Columbus Bar Assn. v. AduseiOhio Supreme Court · 2013
  3. Akron Bar Ass'n v. HoldaOhio Supreme Court · 2006
  4. Geauga County Bar Ass'n v. MartoranaOhio Supreme Court · 2013
  5. Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. RandolphOhio Supreme Court · 1999

2 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