Case ID: ohio-st-3d_84/html/0375-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Per Curiam.\n     Lundberg Stratton, J.,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Columbus Bar Association v. Emerson.
    [Cite as Columbus Bar Assn. v. Emerson (1999), 84 Ohio St.3d 375.]
    
      (No. 98-1744
    Submitted September 29, 1998
    Decided January 13, 1999.)
    
      
      Vorys, Safer, Seymour & Pease and Julie A. Davis; Schottensfein, Zox & Dunn and James E. Davidson; and Bruce A. Campbell, for relator.
    
      Wesley C. Emerson, pro se.
    
   Per Curiam.

We adopt the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the board. Respondent’s pattern of neglect and misrepresentation coupled with his cavalier attitude towards the disciplinary proceedings establishes his present unfitness to practice law in Ohio. Respondent is hereby indefinitely suspended from the practice of law in Ohio.

Judgment accordingly.

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

Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., dissent.

Lundberg Stratton, J.,

dissenting. I dissent from the majority’s decision to indefinitely suspend the respondent and would disbar the respondent. His problem, time after time, of obtaining retainers and utterly failing to do anything about the matter, or to return files and retainer upon discharge, is akin to theft. Respondent’s failure to cooperate in the disciplinary process or to present any mitigation evidence to explain his abusive course of conduct further supports that he is totally unfit to continue the practice of law in this state. Therefore, I would disbar the respondent.

Cook, J., concurs in the foregoing dissenting opinion.