# Columbus Bar Ass'n v. Jackson

> Ohio Supreme Court · May 21, 1997 · 78 Ohio St. 3d 463

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6775395

## Case

- **Full name:** Columbus Bar Association v. Jackson
- **Court:** Ohio Supreme Court
- **Decided:** May 21, 1997
- **Citations:** 78 Ohio St. 3d 463; 678 N.E.2d 920
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Cook
- **Judges:** Cook, Douglas, Moyer, Pfeifer, Resnick, Stratton, Sweeney
- **Cited by:** 4 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/6775395

## Opinion text

Cook, J.,
dissenting. Respondent’s course of conduct depicts a great deal more than inexperience. A lawyer new to the practice of law should not be excused for (1) issuing an insufficient-funds check to his client from his trust account, (2) twice ignoring requests from courts for status letters, (3) being cited five times for past-due probate filings, (4) twice failing to appear at citation hearings with resulting contempt of court charges, (5) ignoring the responsibility to file a tax return rather than seeking assistance, and (6) espousing a “didn’t get to it” reason for failure to fulfill the responsibility he accepted as a fiduciary. Diligence is not a “goal” to be reached through experience in the practice; it is a requirement from the first day. The public is entitled to be protected from lawyers who will not perform, in the manner of a competent professional, the work for which they were engaged. I would, therefore, suspend the respondent for one year.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6775395. Public record. Not legal advice.