Legal Opinion

Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Clark

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided April 30, 1997No. 96-1968PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Per curiam

We have reviewed the record and accept the findings and conclusions of the board. Neglect of an entrusted legal matter warrants the sanction of suspension. Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Droe (1996), 77 Ohio St.3d 89, 671 N.E.2d 230. In view of the repetitive nature of respondent’s violations, we hereby suspend respondent from the practice of law for two years, with one year of the suspension stayed and respondent placed on probation for that one-year period. As conditions of probation, respondent is to enter into a contract with OLAP or a similar monitoring agency, attend counseling and…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Cleveland Bar Ass'n v. DroeOhio Supreme Court · 1996

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Disciplinary Counsel v. GallagherOhio Supreme Court · 1998
  2. Erie-Huron Counties Joint Certified Grievance Committee v. DerbyOhio Supreme Court · 2012
  3. Columbus Bar Ass'n v. TaylorOhio Supreme Court · 1998
  4. Disciplinary Counsel v. ClarkOhio Supreme Court · 1997
  5. Columbus Bar Assn. v. TaylorOhio Supreme Court · 1998

3 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