Opinion

Cuyahoga County Bar Ass'n v. Poole

  • 120 Ohio St. 3d 361
  • 899 N.E.2d 950
Court
Ohio Supreme Court
Filed
Dec 4, 2008
Status
Published
Author
Moyer
On the bench
Connor, Cupp, Donnell, Lanzinger, Moyer, Pfeifer, Stratton
Cited by
4 cases
Authority
More cited than 15.3%

The opinion

Moyer, C.J.,

dissenting.

{¶ 22} I respectfully dissent from the sanction imposed on respondent by the majority. Respondent was hired by two different clients to perform specified legal services, but failed to do so. He accepted money from those clients, but failed to return it upon demand until formal grievances were filed against him. Respondent also refused to cooperate in the investigation of his misconduct. The majority imposes a one-year suspension with the entire suspension stayed on conditions.

{¶ 23} Based on respondent’s misconduct and sanctions imposed in similar cases, a harsher punishment is warranted. See Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Church, 116 Ohio St.3d 563 , 2008-Ohio-81 , 880 N.E.2d 917 (indefinite suspension); Columbus Bar Assn. v. Winkfield (2001), 91 Ohio St.3d 364 , 745 N.E.2d 411 (two-year suspension with final year stayed). I would adopt the recommendation of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline and order a two-year suspension with 18 months stayed on the conditions recommended by the board.

O’Connor and Lanzinger, JJ., concur in the foregoing opinion.

Stanley E. Stein, Laurence A. Turbow, and Ellen S. Mandell, for relator.

Reginald Maxton and E. Yvonne Harris, for respondent.

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.