Opinion

Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Saumer

  • 86 Ohio St. 3d 312
  • 715 N.E.2d 124
Court
Ohio Supreme Court
Filed
Aug 25, 1999
Status
Published
On the bench
Cook, Douglas, Moyer, Pfeifer, Resnick, Stratton, Sweeney
Cited by
4 cases
Authority
More cited than 79.5%

The opinion

Per Curiam.

We adopt the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the board. Generally, neglect of legal matters and a failure to cooperate in the ensuing investigation warrant an indefinite suspension. Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Rollins (1999), 84 Ohio St.3d 408, 410 , 704 N.E.2d 1210, 1211 . There are no circumstances that require a departure from the foregoing rule in this case. As the board concluded, respondent’s concealment of assets, neglect, and abandonment of the estate case compounded by his total lack of cooperation with and respect for the disciplinary process require an indefinite suspension. Respondent is hereby indefinitely suspended from the practice of law in Ohio. Costs taxed to respondent.

Judgment accordingly.

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