Case ID: ohio-st-3d_76/html/0471-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Per Curiam.\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Cuyahoga County Bar Association v. Keeler.
    [Cite as Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Keeler (1996), 76 Ohio St.3d 471.]
    
      (No. 96-922
    — Submitted June 25, 1996
    — Decided August 28, 1996.)
    
      
      Laurence A. Turbow, Martha H. Krebs and Michael M. Courtney, for relator.
    
      J. Michael Drain, for respondent.
   Per Curiam.

Having reviewed the record, we concur in the board’s findings, conclusions and recommendation. Respondent’s repeated and serious disciplinary violations require, at a bare minimum, an indefinite suspension from the practice of law in Ohio. In fact, his conduct could ordinarily be expected to result in disbarment. See, e.g., Disciplinary Counsel v. Sprague (1996), 74 Ohio St.3d 624, 660 N.E.2d 1168; Disciplinary Counsel v. Rubright (1994), 69 Ohio St.3d 34, 630 N.E.2d 335.

However, we have given appropriate mitigating weight to respondent’s sincere efforts to overcome his alcoholism. See Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Slattery (1996), 74 Ohio St.3d 209, 658 N.E.2d 254; Disciplinary Counsel v. McElrath (1994), 71 Ohio St.3d 131, 642 N.E.2d 370. Accordingly, we hereby indefinitely suspend respondent from the practice of law in Ohio. Costs taxed to respondent.

Judgment accordingly.

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