Case ID: ohio-st-3d_62/html/0354-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Alice Robie Resnick, J. Wright, J.,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Cincinnati Bar Association v. Friedman.
    [Cite as Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Friedman (1992), 62 Ohio St.3d 354.]
    (No. 91-1772
    Submitted November 12, 1991
    Decided January 8, 1992.)
    
      
      Don R. Gardner, Rebecca K. Kaye, Frederick O. Kiel and Edwin W. Patterson III, for relator.
    
      James N. Perry, for respondent.
   Alice Robie Resnick, J.

After a thorough review of the record, we find that respondent has violated the Disciplinary Rules set forth above. Although respondent improperly commingled funds, exercised poor judgment, and was careless in his dealings with clients, he made full disclosure immediately when each matter was called to his attention by the bankruptcy court. All assets were ultimately discovered and full restitution was made to all parties; no individuals have been permanently harmed by respondent’s behavior. Respondent has taken advantage of continuing legal education to improve his knowledge of bankruptcy law. Even though a series of violations have occurred, we do not discern a pattern of intentional misconduct. Accordingly, we suspend respondent from the practice of law for a period of one year. Costs taxed to respondent.

Judgment accordingly.

Sweeney, Douglas and H. Brown, JJ., concur.

Moyer, C.J., Holmes and Wright, JJ., dissent.

Wright, J.,

dissenting. I respectfully dissent. Like the board, I note “a sustained pattern of abuse, fraud, and deception of the courts.” (Emphasis added.) Accordingly, I would suspend respondent indefinitely.

Moyer, C.J., and Holmes, J., concur in the foregoing dissenting opinion.