Ohio Supreme Court, 1998

Dayton Bar Ass'n v. Buren

Ohio Supreme Court · Decided December 30, 1998 · Cook, Douglas, Moyer, Pfeifer, Resnick, Stratton, Sweeney

84 Ohio St. 3d 271; 703 N.E.2d 767

Cases that cite this one

1 later published case cites this decision.

Dayton Bar Assn. v. Buren (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 concur with the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the board. Burén engaged in a continuing course of deceit, misrepresentation, and neglect of duty to his clients and the bankruptcy court. In addition, Burén has failed to cooperate with disciplinary proceedings. Under these circumstances, disbarment is the appropriate sanction. See, e.g., Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Churilla (1997), 78 Ohio St.3d 348, 350, 678 N.E.2d 515, 516-517; *274Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Brown (1997), 78 Ohio St.3d 345, 678 N.E.2d 513. Buren is hereby disbarred from the practice of law in Ohio. 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.