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

Clovis (5/5/2010) (as required by Gov.BarR. V(6)(F)(1)(b) in a defaultproceeding, the record did not supportfinding of one of the charged violations)Crosby (12/29/2009) (court noted and citedprior case law that mishandling of clientfunds is of gravest concern to the courtin reviewing claimed attorneymisconduct; and that maintainingpersonal and office accounts separatefrom client accounts is of utmostimportance)Davis (2/12/2009) (court noted it typicallyimposed a suspension of at least twoyear for lawyers who engaged in asustained course of conduct to concealfrom their clients a failure tocompetently pursue claims on theirbehalf)Davis (11/29/2011) (court orderedrespondent‘s indefinite suspension torun consecutively with her current termsuspension from which she had not yetbeen reinstated)Dawson (11/19/2009) (board notedregistration suspension and CLEmonetary sanction as aggravatingfactors, but the court noted that Gov.BarR. X(5)(C) prohibits consideration ofCLE sanctions in disciplinaryproceedings; when attorney entered intoa settlement agreement with a client theattorney did not have intent to avoid theobligation in bankruptcy although helater filed for bankruptcy, but the boardfound his failure to satisfy the judgmentowed to the client violates DR 1-102(A)(6))Dearfield (10/19/2011) (court found nodishonest or selfish motive whenrespondent had a good faith belief thathe could keep a client‘s filing fee tooffset owed legal fees)Dismuke (3/31/2011) (court ordered termsuspension, but to be reinstated mustprove mentally fit to return to practiceof law; respondent testified he hadunderlying mental-health issued but didnot meet BCGD Proc.Reg.10(B)(2)(g)(i-iv) mitigatingrequirements; eventual cooperation withdisciplinary process]Doellman (12/15/2010) (discussion ofdistinction between dismissals andrecommendations to dismiss; noticeprocedures of Gov.Bar R. V(6)(K) as todismissals; discussion of independentviolations versus a pattern ofIndex- 369misconduct; court precedent in notfinding violations of DR 1-102(A)(5)for commingling; actual suspension forcourse of conduct that violates DR 1-102(A)(4))Emerson (6/25/2009) (indefinite suspensionis appropriate sanction for repeatedneglect and failure to cooperate)Farrell (9/16/2008) (depressive order did notcontribute to cause duplicity; notmitigating factor)Forbes (6/11/2009) (disciplinary proceedingis not forum to collaterally attack acriminal conviction; fundamental tenetof professional responsibility ispersonal and professional integrity;lawyer should refrain from illegalconduct)Freeman (8/13/2008) (when respondent‘sconduct occurred both prior to and afterthe adoption of the Rules andrespondent is charged under theapplicable rule of both the Code ofProfessional Conduct and the Rules ofProfessional Conduct it constitutes onlyone rule violation)Freeman (8/24/2010) (testimony as todepression and OLAP involvement notmitigating factor because noindependent evidence of involvementwith OLAP)Freeman (3/31/2011) (respondent not boundby stipulation when stipulated facts andevidence at hearing demonstrateconduct did not constitute a ruleviolation)Frost (6/24/2009) (lawyer‘s statement aboutjudges; objective standard used indisciplinary cases rather than subjectivestandard applicable in defamation cases;petition for reinstatement must includeproof of mental fitness)Gaul (10/17/2010) (admission of experttestimony as to Code of JudicialConduct; interpretation of conductprejudicial to the administration forpurposes of Prof.Cond. R. 8.4(d) whendisciplining judge; discussion ofmeaning of performing judicial dutieswithout bias or prejudice for purposesof Jud.Cond. R. 3(B)(5))Gibson (2/16/2011) (exception to actualsuspension when dishonesty violatingProf.Cond. R. 8.4(c))Gittinger (8/6/2010) (reinstatement topractice law after an indefinitesuspension was conditioned on notapplying for reinstatement until after