Opinion

Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Fortado

  • 74 Ohio St. 3d 604
  • 660 N.E.2d 1154
Court
Ohio Supreme Court
Filed
Feb 28, 1996
Status
Published
On the bench
Cook, Douglas, Moyer, Pfeifer, Resnick, Sweeney, Wright
Cited by
9 cases
Authority
More cited than 83.6%

The opinion

Per Curiam.

Fortado asks that we stay his entire two-year suspension, citing Disciplinary Counsel v. Casalinuovo (1993), 66 Ohio St.3d 367 , 613 N.E.2d 177 , and Disciplinary Counsel v. Carter (1994), 68 Ohio St.3d 568 , 629 N.E.2d 430 . Casalinuovo and Carter were cases of attorneys who, after being found guilty of drug abuse, received treatment in lieu of conviction under R.C. 2951.041. But in those cases, the respondents were sanctioned solely for using illegal drugs. Fortado is guilty of other misconduct as well; he admits two violations each of DR 1-102(A)(6) and Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G), including the improper disbursement of $11,500 of a client’s funds and repeated failures to cooperate with relator’s investigation.

Accordingly, we adopt the board’s findings, conclusions, and recommendation. Matthew Fortado is suspended from the practice of law in Ohio for two years. *607 One year of this sanction is stayed on the conditions recommended by the board as stated above. Costs taxed to respondent.

Judgment accordingly.

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Wright, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer and Cook, 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.