Legal Opinion

Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Lowrey

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided March 3, 1999No. 98-2218PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Per curiam

We adopt the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the board. Absent any mitigating factors, the appropriate sanction for misappropriation of client funds is disbarment. Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Belock (1998), 82 Ohio St.3d 98, 100, 694 N.E.2d 897, 899. Nevertheless, we give weight to the board’s recommendation of the lesser sanction of indefinite suspension based on the evidence of mitigation. See, e.g., Disciplinary Counsel v. Kurtz (1998), 82 Ohio St.3d 55, 57, 693 N.E.2d 1080, 1082, in which we held that an attorney’s misappropriation of funds while serving as testamentary trustee…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Cleveland Bar Ass'n v. BelockOhio Supreme Court · 1998
  2. Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. KurtzOhio Supreme Court · 1998
  3. Dayton Bar Ass'n v. ShamanOhio Supreme Court · 1997

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Cleveland Bar Assn. v. DixonOhio Supreme Court · 2002
  2. Columbus Bar Ass'n v. HamiltonOhio Supreme Court · 2000
  3. Columbus Bar Assn. v. HamiltonOhio Supreme Court · 2000

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

Powered by the Exa API