Cleveland Bar Ass'n v. Belock
Cases that cite this one
42 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Anthony (Ohio 2013)
- Cleveland Bar Ass'n v. Harris (Ohio 2002)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Little (Slip Opinion) (Ohio 2017)
- Trumbull Cty. Bar Assn. v. Dull (Slip Opinion) (Ohio 2017)
- Stark County Bar Ass'n v. Williams (Ohio 2013)
- Cuyahoga County Bar Ass'n v. Mazanec (Ohio 2007)
- Akron Bar Ass'n v. Dietz (Ohio 2006)
- Cleveland Bar Ass'n v. Rus (Ohio 2005)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Nagorny (Ohio 2004)
- Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Smith (Ohio 2003)
- Cincinnati Bar Ass'n v. Schwartz (Ohio 2003)
- Cleveland Bar Ass'n v. Dixon (Ohio 2002)
- Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Harris (Ohio 2002)
- Cuyahoga County Bar Ass'n v. Lavin (Ohio 2001)
- Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Zumstein (Ohio 2001)
- Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Wherry (Ohio 2000)
- Columbus Bar Ass'n v. Hamilton (Ohio 2000)
- Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Lowrey (Ohio 1999)
- Cleveland Bar Ass'n v. Stebbins (Ohio 1999)
- Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Bertram (Ohio 1999)
- Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Roberts (Ohio 1999)
- Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Kinane (Ohio 1999)
- Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Romaniw (Ohio 1998)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Romaniw (Ohio 1998)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Sharp (Ohio 2022)
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
After reviewing the record in this case, we have adopted the findings and conclusions of the board, but not its recommendation. We do not accept respondent’s claim that the extenuating circumstances justified his use of client funds. No circumstances ever justify the deliberate misappropriation of client’s funds for a lawyer’s personal benefit.
The continuing public confidence in the judicial system and the bar requires that the strictest discipline be imposed in misappropriation cases. We have previously held that the appropriate discipline when a lawyer knowingly converts client funds is disbarment. Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Churilla (1997), 78 Ohio St.3d 348, 678 N.E.2d 515. We adhere to that position in this case. Respondent is disbarred from the practice of law in Ohio. Costs taxed to respondent.
Judgment accordingly.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.