Opinion

Cleveland Bar Ass'n v. Hamilton

  • 6 Ohio St. 2d 264
  • 35 Ohio Op. 2d 424
  • 217 N.E.2d 863
  • 1966 Ohio LEXIS 381
Court
Ohio Supreme Court
Filed
Jun 15, 1966
Status
Published
On the bench
Brown, Herbert, Matthias, Neill, Schneider, Taft, Zimmerman
Cited by
4 cases
Authority
More cited than 83.7%

The opinion

Per Curiam.

Prom an examination of the transcript of the evidence and the exhibits, we are of the view that the findings of the board are supportable; that respondent in the capacity of an attorney misappropriated and misapplied funds entrusted to him by a client; and that his conduct was reprehensible and indefensible and constituted a violation of the Canons of Professional Ethics and the rules of this court, as specified by the board. However, because of certain mitigating circumstances, this court is of the opinion that the recommendation of the board should be reduced from disbarment to a suspension for an indefinite period under Section (6) (b), Rule XVIII of this court.

Report confirmed as herein modified and judgment accordingly.

Taft, C. J., Zimmerman, Matthias, O’Neill, Herbert, Schneider and Brown, JJ., concur.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.