# Cincinnati Bar Ass'n v. Randolph

> Ohio Supreme Court · April 7, 1999 · 85 Ohio St. 3d 325

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6779354

## Case

- **Full name:** Cincinnati Bar Association v. Randolph
- **Court:** Ohio Supreme Court
- **Decided:** April 7, 1999
- **Citations:** 85 Ohio St. 3d 325; 708 N.E.2d 192
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion of the court
- **Judges:** Cook, Douglas, Moyer, Pfeifer, Resnick, Stratton, Sweeney
- **Cited by:** 6 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/6779354

## Opinion text

Per Curiam.
We adopt the findings, conclusions, and x-ecommendation of the board. A public reprimand is the appropiiate sanction for respondent’s isolated act of misconduct. See Akron Bar Assn. v. Naumoff (1991), 62 Ohio St.3d 72 , 578 N.E.2d 452 , and Mahoning Cty. Bar Assn. v. Gilmartin (1991), 62 Ohio St.3d 10 , 577 N.E.2d 350 , where we publicly reprimanded and ordered attorneys to make full restitution to clients for violating DR 2-106(A). As the board found, once respondent became aware of his error in retaining a fee from the burial fee account, he made complete restitution to the beneficiaries of the testamexxtary *327 trust and accepted complete responsibility for his actions. Respondent is hereby publicly reprimanded. Costs taxed to respondent.
Judgment accordingly.
Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6779354. Public record. Not legal advice.