Ohio Supreme Court, 1992

Cincinnati Bar Ass'n v. Friedman

Cincinnati Bar Ass'n v. Friedman
Ohio Supreme Court · Decided January 8, 1992 · Brown, Douglas, Holmes, Moyer, Resnick, Sweeney, Wright
62 Ohio St. 3d 354; 582 N.E.2d 970; 1992 Ohio LEXIS 1

Cincinnati Bar Ass'n v. Friedman

Opinion of the Court

Alice Robie Resnick, J.

After a thorough review of the record, we find that respondent has violated the Disciplinary Rules set forth above. Although respondent improperly commingled funds, exercised poor judgment, and was careless in his dealings with clients, he made full disclosure immediately when each matter was called to his attention by the bankruptcy court. All assets were ultimately discovered and full restitution was made to all parties; no individuals have been permanently harmed by respondent’s behavior. Respondent has taken advantage of continuing legal education to improve his knowledge of bankruptcy law. Even though a series of violations have occurred, we do not discern a pattern of intentional misconduct. Accordingly, *357we suspend respondent from the practice of law for a period of one year. Costs taxed to respondent.

Judgment accordingly.

Sweeney, Douglas and H. Brown, JJ., concur. Moyer, C.J., Holmes and Wright, JJ., dissent.

Dissenting Opinion

Wright, J.,

dissenting. I respectfully dissent. Like the board, I note “a sustained pattern of abuse, fraud, and deception of the courts.” (Emphasis added.) Accordingly, I would suspend respondent indefinitely.

Moyer, C.J., and Holmes, J., concur in the foregoing dissenting opinion.

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