Disciplinary Counsel v. King

[This opinion has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 74 Ohio St.3d 612.] OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. KING. [Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. King,

1996-Ohio-238.] Attorneys at law—Misconduct—Six-month suspension—Deliberately false statements to a client—Neglect of an entrusted legal matter—Conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation—Prior offenses considered as a factor that may justify an increase in the degree of discipline for subsequent misconduct. (No. 95-378—Submitted October 24, 1995—Decided February 28, 1996.) ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of…