# Dayton Bar Ass'n v. Stinchfield > Ohio Supreme Court · March 31, 1981 · 65 Ohio St. 2d 130 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6757147 ## Case - **Full name:** Dayton Bar Association v. Stinchfield - **Court:** Ohio Supreme Court - **Decided:** March 31, 1981 - **Citations:** 65 Ohio St. 2d 130; 19 Ohio Op. 3d 319; 418 N.E.2d 1366; 1981 Ohio LEXIS 459 - **Precedential status:** Published - **Opinion:** Dissent by Holmes - **Judges:** Brown, Celebrezze, Holmes, Locher, Sweeney - **Cited by:** 2 later opinions in the Frix Law Library ## Citator (automated) - No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases. - Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6757147 ## Opinion text 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. --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6757147. Public record. Not legal advice.