Ohio Supreme Court, 1997

Cincinnati Bar Ass'n v. Harvey

Ohio Supreme Court · Decided September 24, 1997 · Cook, Douglas, Moyer, Pfeifer, Resnigk, Stratton, Sweeney

79 Ohio St. 3d 389; 683 N.E.2d 1070

Cases that cite this one

1 later published case cites this decision.

Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Harvey (Ohio 1997)

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.

We adopt the findings and conclusions of the board. An attorney’s failure to perform legal services for which he has been engaged and then lying to a client about the status of the case has warranted suspension. Dayton Bar Assn. v. Andrews (1997), 79 Ohio St.3d 109, 679 N.E.2d 1093; Disciplinary Counsel v. Crowley (1996), 176 Ohio St.3d 365, 667 N.E.2d 1183; Disciplinary Counsel v. Trumbo (1996), 76 Ohio St.3d 369, 667 N.E.2d 1186. In this case respondent compounded his neglect of a client by lying and attempting to mislead relator in its investigation. Unlike Andrews, Crowley, and Trumbo, we find no mitigating circumstances here. We hereby indefinitely suspend respondent from the practice of law in Ohio. Costs taxed to respondent.

Judgment accordingly.

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnigk, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.

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