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

satisfaction of a five–year supervised
release period; court addressed that the
sanction of indefinite suspension avoids
inconsistency in the court‘s disciplinary
sanction and the federal court‘s criminal
sanction and allows for resolution of the
criminal case prior to reinstatement to
the practice of law)
Glaeser (12/4/2009) (court noted in a
footnote that the complaint alleged a
violation of DR 9-102(B)(4), but the
master commissioner and board
parenthetically misquoted the substance
of that rule, quoting instead the
substance of DR 9-102(B)(3))
Goldblatt (5/29/2008) (respondent‘s
objection at oral argument that he
should receive credit for time served
under interim suspension was not
properly before the court because not
raised in written objections)
Godles (12/27/2010) (mere fact that
malpractice suit is pending is not a
mitigating factor; notice of restitution in
settling malpractice without admission
of malpractice is not mitigating factor
because with no admission of
misconduct respondent is not
technically being penalized for it)
Gresley (12/22/2010) (neglect and failure to
cooperate generally warrant indefinite
suspension, but court departed from this
sanction based upon cases and
respondent‘s eventual cooperation)
Grigsby (3/31/2011) (purpose of disciplinary
process to protect public; self reported
misconduct)
Grote (10/7/2010) (taking fees without
performing services is tantamount to
theft)
Hackett (6/30/2011) (client‘s right to choose
their attorney is absolute; requirement
that respondent receive 95% of the fee
regardless of what he actually did
showed a dishonest/ selfish motive)
Hale (12/4/2008) (bankruptcy, lawyers not
responsible for restitution discharged in
bankruptcy; cited Gay (2002), Gerren
(2006)
Heiland (1/17/2008) (Fifth amendment right
against self-incrimination; disciplinary
proceedings not civil or criminal; due
process in disciplinary proceeding not
equal to those in criminal proceeding;
amended complaints less than 30 days
prior to hearing when good cause
shown; rule does not require that
respondent have 20 days to respond to
Index- 370
amended complaint before hearing; Gov
Bar R. V and regulations are to be
construed liberally)
Henry (12/22/2010) (presumptive sanction
for taking retainer and failing to carry
out employment is disbarment; no
mitigating effect chemical dependency
when no evidence to meet BCGD
Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(g) requirements)
Hildebrand (12/1/2010) (presumptive
sanction for taking retainer and failing
to carry out employment is disbarment;
in footnote 1 the court observed that
Gov.Bar R. V(8) prohibits consideration
of CLE suspension in imposition of
disciplinary sanction the court noted
that respondent‘s previous suspension
was mentioned by board)
Hoff (1/26/2010) (court did not accept
master commissioner‘s and board‘s
finding of a violation of Rule 1.4(a)(3)
because it was not charged in the
complaint)
Holda (4/7/2010) (relator dismissed a charge
of a violation of Prof.Cond. R. 1.16(d),
but panel and board were able to make a
finding of the violation because it was
originally charged in the complaint)
Hoskins (7/3/2008) (acquittal of criminal
charges does not preclude court from
finding conduct unethical; clear and
convincing evidence; judges held to
higher standards than attorneys or other
persons)
Jackson (11/30/2010) (discusses cases in
which there was initial failure to
cooperate then later cooperation; initial
false statements then truthful)
Johnson (7/23/2009) (readmission after oneyear
suspension with six months stayed
conditioned upon evaluation and report
showing mental fitness)
Johnson (10/7/2010) (general stress is not
mitigating factor when objective
standard of Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(g) not
met; deference to panel‘s credibility
determinations; voluntary decision to
not practice law not mitigating when
departure exacerbated harm to client)
Johnston (4/2/2009) (trust account overdraft
triggered bank to report to relator)
Jones (10/1/2009) (attorney with inactive
status was disciplined but the
suspension, stay, and probation will
take effect upon respondent‘s return to
active practice in Ohio)
Jones (12/16/2010) (attorney with inactive
status discipline for a second time while