Ohio Supreme Court, 1997

Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Washington

Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Washington
Ohio Supreme Court · Decided June 11, 1997 · Cook, Douglas, Moyer, Pfeifer, Resnick, Respondent, Stratton, Sweeney
78 Ohio St. 3d 541; 679 N.E.2d 271

Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Washington

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam.

We adopt the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the board. By engaging a co-counsel without determining whether he would be able to perform his duties, respondent neglected the legal matter entrusted to him by the court. By being less than honest in his reasons for time extensions, respondent engaged in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice. *543Respondent is hereby suspended from the practice of law in Ohio for six months. Costs are taxed to respondent.

Judgment accordingly.

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur. F.E. Sweeney, J., dissents and would publicly reprimand respondent.

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