Opinion

Dayton Bar Ass'n v. Stinchfield

  • 65 Ohio St. 2d 130
  • 19 Ohio Op. 3d 319
  • 418 N.E.2d 1366
  • 1981 Ohio LEXIS 459
Court
Ohio Supreme Court
Filed
Mar 31, 1981
Status
Published
Author
Holmes
On the bench
Brown, Celebrezze, Holmes, Locher, Sweeney
Cited by
2 cases

The opinion

Holmes, J.,

dissenting. I agree that sanctions must be applied in this disciplinary matter, but I vary with the majority as to the severity or degree. In my view, the facts of this matter present a circumstance concerning which this court should apply one of the most recently promulgated rules of sanction, that being a one-year suspension.

Here, there is no fact pattern involving the moral turpitude of this attorney, nor did he abscond with clients’ funds. His violations, in the main, involved a marked incapacity to appropriately handle his clients’ problems and affairs. Whether such absence of this capability stemmed from a low level of legal expertise, or his health and psychological problems, as argued by the respondent, this writer is unable to completely evaluate. But, in any event, I feel this case does not present the type of situation that we have considered previously wherein we meted out the sanction of indefinite suspension.

Accordingly, I would vote to suspend respondent from the practice of law for the period of one year.

C. Brown, J., concurs in the foregoing dissenting opinion.

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.