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

Case Summaries- 42
1-102(A)(5), 7-101(A)(1), and 7-102(A)(5), but neither the panel nor the board found a violation of DR 7-
101(A)(3). The court adopted the board‘s findings of fact and conclusions of law. In aggravation, there
was a pattern of misconduct and multiple offenses. BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(c), and (d). In mitigation,
the respondent had no prior disciplinary record in her 22 year career. BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(a). The
board recommended an indefinite suspension. The sanction imposed in several cases was considered:
Wise (2006) (indefinite suspension), McCauly (2007) (indefinite suspension), Koury (1990) (indefinite
suspension) and Hunter (2005) (disbarment). The court, giving weight to the board‘s recommendation
of the lesser sanction of indefinite suspension based on the mitigation evidence of her 22 years of practice
without ethical violation, ordered an indefinite suspension.
Rules Violated: Prof.Cond.R. 1.3, 1.5(a), 1.15(a), 5.5(a), 8.1(a), 8.4(b), 8.4(c), 8.4(d), 8.4(h); DR 1-
102(A)(4), 1-102(A)(5), 1-102(A)(6), 7-101(A)(1), 7-102(A)(5)
Aggravation: (c), (d)
Mitigation: (a)
Prior Discipline: NO Procedure/ Process Issues: NO Criminal Conduct: YES
Public Official: NO Sanction: Indefinite Suspension