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

Case Summaries- 51not DR 1-102(A)(5) or 6-101(A)(1) as charged by relator. In mitigation, respondent lacked a priordisciplinary record. BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(a). In aggravation, respondent: acted with a dishonestor selfish motive, engaged in multiple offenses and a pattern of misconduct, demonstrated lack ofcooperation and deception in disciplinary investigation, harmed a vulnerable client, and failed toacknowledge the harm to that client. BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(b), (c), (d), (e), (f), (g), and (h). TheBoard 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 indefinitesuspension. Citations to Vild (2005), Wagner (2007), Zingarelli (2000), and Heiland (2008) asapplicable precedent and to Agopian (2006) noting that the goal of the disciplinary process is to protectthe 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: NOPublic Official: NO Sanction: Indefinite Suspension