Cincinnati Bar Ass'n v. Hatfield
Cincinnati Bar Ass'n v. Hatfield
Opinion of the Court
We have previously said that our Disciplinary Rules require that a lawyer not intentionally fail to carry out his contract with his client or cause damage to the client. Columbus Bar Assn. v. Clark (1996), 76 Ohio St.3d 363, 365, 667 N.E.2d 1182, 1183. For that reason we have indefinitely suspended lawyers who have lied to their clients and deceived them into believing that their interests were being attended to when they were not. Disciplinary Counsel v.
In this case respondent misappropriated client funds, falsely told his clients that he had filed actions on their behalf, and intentionally settled matters against his clients’ express instructions.
The board has recommended an indefinite suspension in this ease with reinstatement conditioned upon restitution to Diers, the estate of Wages,
Kristina Diers $585
John Wheale and Pauline Jurkowitz $146.50
Estate of Ronald P. Wages $700
Costs and expenses of this proceeding are hereby taxed to the respondent.
Judgment accordingly.
. It appears from the record that Ronald P. Wages is now deceased.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- Cincinnati Bar Association v. Hatfield
- Cited By
- 3 cases
- Status
- Published