History
  • No items yet
midpage
Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Clark
78 Ohio St. 3d 302
| Ohio | 1997
|
Check Treatment
Per Curiam.

We have reviewed the record and accept the findings and conclusions of the board. Neglect of an entrusted legal matter warrants the sanction of suspension. Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Droe (1996), 77 Ohio St.3d 89, 671 N.E.2d 230. In view of the repetitive nature of respondent’s violations, we hereby suspend respondent from the practice of law for two years, with one year of the suspension stayed and respondent placed on probation for that one-year period. As conditions of probation, respondent is to enter into a contract with OLAP or a similar monitoring agency, attend counseling and support-group meetings regularly, maintain regular contact with a legal mentor, remain alcohol-free, and attend legal-office management courses for a minimum of twelve hours, as a part of his Continuing Legal Education requirement. Costs taxed to respondent.

Judgment accordingly.

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.

Case Details

Case Name: Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Clark
Court Name: Ohio Supreme Court
Date Published: Apr 30, 1997
Citation: 78 Ohio St. 3d 302
Docket Number: No. 96-1968
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.