disciplinary handbook: volume v - Supreme Court - State of Ohio

Case Summaries- 161
none of the money paid for the items removed had made its way to Steiner. The Supreme Court of
Ohio adopted the board‘s findings that respondent violated DR 5-103(B) by making the $5,000 loan
to Steiner; DR 1-102(A)(4) his misrepresentations to Steiner‘s children regarding Steiner‘s mental
health and whether the property complied with township code; DR 4-101(B)(2) and 1-102(A)(6) by
misusing confidential information to Steiner‘s disadvantage to solicit support of his children for the
cleanup which he knew Steiner would oppose; DR 1-102(A)(4) by the retention of decorative stone
which was used in landscape at respondent‘ home; and DR 9-102(B)(3) and 1-102(A)(6) by failing to
adequately and honestly account for the property. In aggravation, he refused to acknowledge the
wrongful nature of the conduct, other than lending the client money; failed to make restitution or help
the client retrieve his possession; and the client was vulnerable and suffered harm. In mitigation he
practiced law for more than 45 years without a disciplinary record. He did not act with dishonest or
selfish motive. He had an exemplary career and offered 40 letters of reference from people of all walks
of life and presented character testimony of two current and one retired judges. He fully cooperated and
made full disclosure and has suffered embarrassment resulting from local media. The court adopted the
board‘s recommended sanction of a one-year suspension, stayed on conditions and the court so ordered.
Three justices dissented in favor of an actual suspension of one year, with no stay.
Rules Violated: DR 1-102(A)(4), 1-102(A)(6), 4-101(B)(2), 5-103(B), 9-102(B)(3)
Aggravation: (g), (h), (i)
Mitigation: (a)
Prior Discipline: NO Procedure/ Process Issues: NO Criminal Conduct: NO
Public Official: NO Sanction: One-year suspension, stayed