finding that 25 years of involvement with the legal aid society, a “staggering amount” of pro bono work, and a long history of volunteerism qualify as a mitigating factor
How later courts described this case
- finding that 25 years of involvement with the legal aid society, a “staggering amount” of pro bono work, and a long history of volunteerism qualify as a mitigating factor
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Moyer, C.J.,
dissenting.
{¶ 21} I respectfully dissent from the majority decision in regard to the sanction imposed on respondent. Respondent neglected a client matter, resulting in a default judgment being entered against the client. He improperly obtained a loan from another client who had hired respondent to execute a last will and testament, a will that named respondent as executor of the estate. Both of these charges are serious in their own right, but respondent’s misconduct is compounded by the pattern of dishonesty and deceit he exhibited. Respondent attempted to deceive the investigator from the Cleveland Metropolitan Bar Association who interviewed respondent about the client matter he neglected. In the other matter, respondent did not disclose the loan he received from the client when he applied for authority to administer the client’s estate and again failed to disclose the client’s loan to him in the inventory and appraisal of the estate.
{¶ 22} I conclude that due to the dishonesty displayed by the respondent, he should serve a more severe suspension than that imposed by the majority. The mitigating factors in this case do not warrant modifying the board’s recom *244 mended sanction. I would therefore adopt the recommendation of the board and impose an 18-month suspension with six months stayed.
R. Jeffrey Pollock and Erin K. Walsh, for relator.
Leonard A. Spremulli, for respondent.
O’Connor and Cupp, JJ., concur in the foregoing opinion.