History
  • No items yet
midpage
89 Ohio St. 3d 113
Ohio
2000
Per Curiam.

We adopt the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the board. Respondent’s repeated attempts to mislead his client constitute a course of conduct in violation of DR 1-102(A)(4), which warrants an actual suspension from the practice of law. Disciplinary Counsel v. Fowerbaugh (1995), 74 Ohio St.3d 187, 191, 658 N.E.2d 237, 240. Respondent is hereby suspended from the practice of law in Ohio for six months. Cost are 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. Wallace
Court Name: Ohio Supreme Court
Date Published: May 31, 2000
Citations: 89 Ohio St. 3d 113; 729 N.E.2d 343; No. 99-1866
Docket Number: No. 99-1866
Court Abbreviation: Ohio
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Log In