The relationship between respondent and Abbey was not that of an attorney-client. As the board properly points out it was more of a business and personal relationship. In view of the fact that respondent’s conduct in no way involved any judicial proceedings and was outside an attorney-client relationship the court concurs with the board that the respondent did not violate DR 1-102(A)(5) or DR 9-102(B)(3).

This court further finds that respondent has violated DR 1-102(A)(3), (4) and (6).1 The actions of respondent in misappropriating funds from Abbey’s personal bank account constituted illegal conduct involving moral turpitude, dishonesty, fraud, deceit and misrepresentation, and were violative of DR 1-102(A)(3), (4) and (6). Conduct such as that of the respondent adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law in the state of Ohio.

Having found that respondent did violate DR 1-102(A)(3), (4) and (6), it is the judgment of this court that the respondent be indefinitely suspended from the practice of law.

Judgment accordingly.