Opinion

Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Heck

15 Ohio St. 3d 33
15 Ohio B. 133
472 N.E.2d 694
1984 Ohio LEXIS 1257

Court: Ohio Supreme Court
Filed: Dec 13, 1984
Status: Published
On the bench: Brown, Celebrezze, Holmes, Locher, Sweeney
Cited by: 2 cases
Authority: More cited than 71.6%

The opinion

Per Curiam.

An assiduous scrutiny of the record compels us to accept the findings of the board. Although the commingling of client funds with those of the attorney, to the prejudice of a client, warrants strong disciplinary action, it is respondent’s demeanor throughout these pro *34 ceedings that is ultimately responsible for the gravity of the sanction we impose today.

Accordingly, respondent is hereby indefinitely suspended from the practice of law.

Judgment accordingly.

Celebrezze, C.J., W. Brown, Sweeney, Locher, Holmes, C. Brown and J. P. Celebrezze, 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.