78 Ohio St. 3d 103 | Ohio | 1997
We accept the findings and conclusions of the board, but believe that a more stringent penalty is warranted. Respondent represented the lender in this case, but his arrangement with the parties enabled him to receive a fee from the borrower for each loan made by the lender. Despite the fact that the lender independently decided to make each loan, this arrangement put respondent in a position where he could profit by withholding information from or exercising influence on the lender.
A lawyer should avoid even the appearance of impropriety and the implication that his professional judgment on behalf of a client could be affected by the
Judgment accordingly.