Ohio Supreme Court, 1998

Cincinnati Bar Ass'n v. Caliman

Ohio Supreme Court · Decided October 28, 1998 · Cook, Douglas, Moyer, Only, Pfeifer, Resnick, Stratton, Sweeney

83 Ohio St. 3d 461; 700 N.E.2d 857

Cases that cite this one

4 later published cases cite this decision.

Akron Bar Ass'n v. Hoffer (Ohio 1999)
Akron Bar Assn. v. Hoffer (Ohio 1999)
Cincinnati Bar Ass'n. v. Caliman (Ohio 1998)
Cincinnati Bar Ass n. v. Caliman (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.

We adopt the findings of the board. The evidence considered by the panel involved both respondent’s failure to pursue a legal matter and *462respondent’s misrepresentation of the status of that matter to his clients. We therefore adopt the conclusion of the board that respondent violated DR 1-102(A)(4) and 6-101(A)(3). In Disciplinary Counsel v. Fowerbaugh (1995), 74 Ohio St.3d 187, 191, 658 N.E.2d 237, 240, a case very similar to this, we held that “when an attorney engages in a course of conduct * * * that violates DR 1-102(A)(4), the attorney will be actually suspended from the practice of law for an appropriate period of time.” In this case the board recommended that respondent be suspended for six months with the suspension stayed. That recommendation does not follow the Fowerbaugh ■ prescription of “actual suspension.”

We hereby suspend respondent from the practice of law in Ohio for an actual period of six months. Costs taxed to respondent.

Judgment accordingly.

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

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