Opinion

Cincinnati Bar Ass'n v. Harmon

  • 17 Ohio St. 3d 69
  • 17 Ohio B. 134
  • 477 N.E.2d 629
  • 1985 Ohio LEXIS 315
Court
Ohio Supreme Court
Filed
May 8, 1985
Status
Published
On the bench
Brown, Celebrezze, Douglas, Holmes, Locher, Sweeney, Wright
Cited by
2 cases
Authority
More cited than 58.7%

The opinion

Per Curiam.

This court concurs in the findings and recommendations of the board of commissioners. The unrebutted disciplinary violations herein, involving two separate instances of attorney malpractice, appear to be part of a continuing and deliberate pattern of irresponsibility by the respondent. As we noted in the first action, “[a]n attorney’s failure to render the legal services for which he was paid, or to return any fee advanced by a client, is ‘tantamount to theft * * *.’ ” Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Harmon, supra, at 16. As we further noted in Cincinnati Bar Assn., supra, and affirm today, respondent’s lack of professional ethics will not be condoned, particularly in view of the disturbing and wide-ranging pattern of malpractice.

It is therefore our judgment that respondent be hereby indefinitely suspended from the practice of law.

Judgment accordingly.

Celebrezze, C.J., Sweeney, Locher, Holmes, C. Brown, Douglas and Wright, 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.