Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. King
Cases that cite this one
9 later published cases cite this decision.
- Disciplinary Counsel v. King (Ohio 2004)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Wilcoxson (Slip Opinion) (Ohio 2021)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Karp (Slip Opinion) (Ohio 2018)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Karp (Ohio 2018)
- Cleveland Metropolitan Bar Ass'n v. Podor (Ohio 2009)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Stollings (Ohio 2006)
- Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. King (Ohio 1996)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Raso (Ohio 2011)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. King (Ohio 1996)
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
We concur with the board’s findings that respondent violated DR 6-101(A)(3) and 1-102(A)(4). However, in view of respondent’s deliberately false statements to his client, we find it appropriate to suspend respondent from the practice of law for a specific period. “Dishonesty toward a client, whose interests are the attorney’s duty to protect, is reprehensible.” Lake Cty. Bar Assn. v. Speros (1995), 73 Ohio St.3d 101, 104, 652 N.E.2d 681, 683. Additionally, respondent’s prior disciplinary record reinforces our decision to impose an actual suspension. “Prior disciplinary offenses shall be considered as a factor that may justify an increase in the degree of discipline * * * for subsequent misconduct.” Gov.Bar R. V(6)(C).
Accordingly, respondent is suspended from the practice of law in Ohio for six months. Costs taxed to respondent.
Judgment accordingly.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.