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

Case Summaries- 51
not DR 1-102(A)(5) or 6-101(A)(1) as charged by relator. In mitigation, respondent lacked a prior
disciplinary record. BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(a). In aggravation, respondent: acted with a dishonest
or selfish motive, engaged in multiple offenses and a pattern of misconduct, demonstrated lack of
cooperation and deception in disciplinary investigation, harmed a vulnerable client, and failed to
acknowledge the harm to that client. BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(b), (c), (d), (e), (f), (g), and (h). The
Board also found a failure to make restitution, however, respondent did make full restitution of
$17,594.20 to Lewis after the Board had issued their report. The Board recommended an indefinite
suspension. Citations to Vild (2005), Wagner (2007), Zingarelli (2000), and Heiland (2008) as
applicable precedent and to Agopian (2006) noting that the goal of the disciplinary process is to protect
the public from unworthy lawyers. The Supreme Court adopted the Boards findings of fact,
conclusions of law, and recommended sanction, and so ordered an indefinite suspension.
Rules Violated: DR 1-102(A)(4), 1-102(A)(6), 2-103(B), 2-107(A)(1), 7-101(A)(2), 7-101(A)(3), 7-
102(A)(5), 9-102(A), 9-102(B)(3), 9-102(B)(4); Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G)
Aggravation: (b), (c), (d), (e), (f), (g), (h) Mitigation: (a)
Prior Discipline: NO Procedure/ Process Issues: NO Criminal Conduct: NO
Public Official: NO Sanction: Indefinite Suspension