12 Ohio St. 2d 35 | Ohio | 1967
Respondent attacks the findings of fact made by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline on the. ground that relator presented no witnesses other than the complaining witnesses, and that the board resolved all questions
Respondent contends that he was prevented from instituting legal action in these cases because he encountered unforeseen legal problems. Assuming this to be true, it cannot excuse his lies and misrepresentations to his clients concerning the state of their affairs. The Canons of Professional Ethics place the burden on the lawyer to explain, in terms the client can understand, what the lawyer is doing in the client’s behalf or why he is doing nothing.
The court finds that respondent is guilty of professional misconduct subsequent to that for which he was reprimanded on December 23, 1964, and judgment is therefore rendered suspending him indefinitely from the practice of law.
Report confirmed and judgment accordingly.