Ohio Supreme Court, 1987

Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Lile

Ohio Supreme Court · Decided April 1, 1987 · Brown, Douglas, Eighth, Holmes, Locher, Moyer, Patton, Sweeney, Wright

30 Ohio St. 3d 5; 505 N.E.2d 955; 30 Ohio B. 14; 1987 Ohio LEXIS 251

Cases that cite this one

1 later published case cites this decision.

Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Lile (Ohio 1989)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam.

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.

Moyer, C.J., Patton, Locher, Holmes, Douglas, Wright and H. Brown, JJ., concur. Patton, J., of the Eighth Appellate District, sitting for Sweeney, J.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.