Upon review of the record, arguments, and objections before the court, we concur with the board’s findings that, by commingling client funds with general office funds, respondent violated DR 9-102(A) and (B); and that his further conduct detailed above violated DR 1-102(A)(4) and ,1-102(A)(6). ’

Finding respondent’s breaches of professional responsibility sufficiently egregious to warrant suspension beyond one year, we order that respondent be suspended from the practice of law in Ohio for a definite term of two years. It is further ordered that the costs of these proceedings be taxed to respondent.

Judgment accordingly.