Ohio Supreme Court, 1998

Disciplinary Counsel v. Johnson

Ohio Supreme Court · Decided February 18, 1998 · Cook, Douglas, Moyer, Pfeifer, Resnick, Stratton, Sweeney

81 Ohio St. 3d 79; 689 N.E.2d 540

Cases that cite this one

3 later published cases cite this decision.

Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Johnson (Ohio 1999)
Disciplinary Counsel v. Johnson (Ohio 1999)
Disciplinary Counsel v. Johnson (Ohio 1998)

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.

Having reviewed the record, we concur in the board’s findings, conclusions, and recommendation. As we said in Columbus Bar Assn. v. Clark (1996), 76 Ohio St.3d 363, 365, 667 N.E.2d 1182, 1183, “A lawyer is not required to *80serve every client who appears at his door, but once having agreed to represent a client, a lawyer must do so to the best of his ability.” Earlier we said in Disciplinary Counsel v. Greene (1995), 74 Ohio St.3d 13, 16, 655 N.E.2d 1299, 1301, that this court “cannot permit attorneys who lie either to their clients or to the court to continue practicing without interruption.” Therefore, we hereby suspend respondent from the practice of law for one year. Costs taxed to respondent.

Judgment accordingly.

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

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