Ohio Supreme Court, 1999

Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Wise

Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Wise
Ohio Supreme Court · Decided March 24, 1999 · Cook, Douglas, Moyer, Pfeifer, Resnick, Stratton, Sweeney
85 Ohio St. 3d 169; 707 N.E.2d 852

Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Wise

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam.

The normal sanction for misappropriation of client funds is disbarment. Disciplinary Counsel v. Connaughton (1996), 75 Ohio St.3d 644, 645, 665 N.E.2d 675, 676, and cases cited therein. However, on some occasions because of mitigating circumstances, we have given weight to a board recommendation of a lesser sanction. Disciplinary Counsel v. Kurtz (1998), 82 Ohio St.3d 55, 693 N.E.2d 1080. We do so in this case. Respondent is hereby indefinitely suspended from the practice of law in Ohio. Costs are 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.