Columbus Bar Ass'n v. Hamilton
Cases that cite this one
6 later published cases cite this decision.
- Akron Bar Ass'n v. Dietz (Ohio 2006)
- Cleveland Bar Ass'n v. Rus (Ohio 2005)
- Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Smith (Ohio 2003)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Hunter (Ohio 2005)
- Columbus Bar Assn. v. Hamilton (Ohio 2000)
- Erin C. v. Christopher R. (Ohio Ct. App. 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
We adopt the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the board. Absent any mitigating factors, disbarment is the appropriate sanction for an attorney’s misappropriation of client funds. Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Belock (1998), 82 Ohio St.3d 98, 100, 694 N.E.2d 897, 899. Here, however, we accord weight to the board’s recommendation of the lesser sanction of indefinite suspension based on the evidence of mitigation, i.e., no continued pattern of misconduct, restitution, and full cooperation with the disciplinary investigation. See, e.g., Disciplinary Counsel v. Lowrey (1999), 85 Ohio St.3d 2, 4, 706 N.E.2d 758, 759; Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Stebbins (1999), 85 Ohio St.3d 7, 9, 706 N.E.2d 762, 763; see, also, Disciplinary Counsel v. Brown (1999), 87 Ohio St.3d 316, 321, 720 N.E.2d 525, 530, fn. 1, and cases cited therein. Respondent is hereby indefinitely suspended 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.