Columbus Bar Ass'n v. Thompson
Ohio Supreme Court
1Per curiam
The activities with which the respondent is charged are serious indeed, but the charges could reasonably have been even more severe. The facts show that the funds which were given to the respondent by a client were for a specific purpose. When those funds were placed in a trust account, and a check later drawn thereon, the check was returned for insufficient funds. Upon redeposit of the check, it was again returned because of insufficient funds in the account.
It was also stipulated that additional monies of other *669clients went into this trust fund maintained by respondent, and that on a number…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Akron Bar Ass'n v. HughesOhio Supreme Court · 1976
3Cited by29 opinions
- Disciplinary Counsel v. FreemanOhio Supreme Court · 2008
- Committee on Legal Ethics of West Virginia State Bar v. TattersonWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1984
- Committee on Legal Ethics of the West Virginia State Bar v. WhiteWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1986
- Disciplinary Counsel v. WiseOhio Supreme Court · 2006
- Disciplinary Counsel v. CrosbyOhio Supreme Court · 2009
24 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.