History
  • No items yet
midpage
69 Ohio St. 3d 554
Ohio
1994

Lead Opinion

Per Curiam.

We concur in the board’s findings of misconduct. In addition, the board increased the sanction recommended by the panel because of “the calculated, deliberate manner in which Respondent conducted and concealed his fraudulent schemes, his gross abuse of a position of trust and responsibility for personal gain, the amount of the theft, the length of time over which the thefts occurred and a concern that Respondent’s testimony, offered in mitigation and justification of the thefts, instead demonstrated a fundamental lack of appreciation for lawyers’ ethical obligations to the profession and the public.”

We agree with this assessment of respondent’s misconduct and that indefinite suspension is the appropriate sanction. Accordingly, James Tyner Crowley is hereby indefinitely suspended from the practice of law in Ohio. Costs taxed to respondent.

Judgment accordingly.

Moyer, C.J., AW. Sweeney, Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney and Pfeifer, JJ., concur. Wright, J., dissents.





Dissenting Opinion

Wright, J.,

dissenting. I would follow the recommendation of the panel and impose a two-year suspension, with one of the years being suspended on the conditions described in the majority opinion.

Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.

Case Details

Case Name: Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Crowley
Court Name: Ohio Supreme Court
Date Published: Jul 13, 1994
Citations: 69 Ohio St. 3d 554; 634 N.E.2d 1008; No. 93-2537
Docket Number: No. 93-2537
Court Abbreviation: Ohio
AI-generated responses must be verified
and are not legal advice.
Log In
    Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Crowley, 69 Ohio St. 3d 554