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

Case Summaries- 161none of the money paid for the items removed had made its way to Steiner. The Supreme Court ofOhio adopted the board‘s findings that respondent violated DR 5-103(B) by making the $5,000 loanto Steiner; DR 1-102(A)(4) his misrepresentations to Steiner‘s children regarding Steiner‘s mentalhealth and whether the property complied with township code; DR 4-101(B)(2) and 1-102(A)(6) bymisusing confidential information to Steiner‘s disadvantage to solicit support of his children for thecleanup which he knew Steiner would oppose; DR 1-102(A)(4) by the retention of decorative stonewhich was used in landscape at respondent‘ home; and DR 9-102(B)(3) and 1-102(A)(6) by failing toadequately and honestly account for the property. In aggravation, he refused to acknowledge thewrongful nature of the conduct, other than lending the client money; failed to make restitution or helpthe client retrieve his possession; and the client was vulnerable and suffered harm. In mitigation hepracticed law for more than 45 years without a disciplinary record. He did not act with dishonest orselfish motive. He had an exemplary career and offered 40 letters of reference from people of all walksof life and presented character testimony of two current and one retired judges. He fully cooperated andmade full disclosure and has suffered embarrassment resulting from local media. The court adopted theboard‘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: NOPublic Official: NO Sanction: One-year suspension, stayed