History
  • No items yet
midpage
Disciplinary Counsel v. Zingarelli
81 Ohio St. 3d 86
Ohio
1998
Check Treatment
Per Curiam.

We adopt the findings and conclusions of the board, but not its recommendation. Our review of the record indicates that respondent had suffered from his illness for at least twenty years. When he believed in September 1992 that he was entering another biannual manic cycle, he sought out the aid of a physician. He took the prescribed lithium until it ran out, but failed to keep a follow-up appointment. As a result, the physician was unable to monitor respondent’s lithium level and make further prescriptions of the correct dosage.

We believe that respondent, knowing of his genetic illness, had a continuing responsibility to himself and to his clients to scrupulously monitor his condition *88and to follow the dictates of his physician. As the board found, respondent’s failure to do so was the direct cause of the majority of these disciplinary violations. Respondent’s violation of DR 2-107(A)(2) occurred after respondent’s condition was under control. Therefore, respondent is hereby suspended from the practice of law for two years. Costs taxed to respondent.

Judgment accordingly.

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur. F.E. Sweeney, J., dissents and would adopt the recommendation of the board.

Case Details

Case Name: Disciplinary Counsel v. Zingarelli
Court Name: Ohio Supreme Court
Date Published: Feb 18, 1998
Citation: 81 Ohio St. 3d 86
Docket Number: No. 97-1753
Court Abbreviation: Ohio
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.