Case ID: ohio-st-3d_89/html/0113-01.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

Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Wallace.
    [Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Wallace (2000), 89 Ohio St.3d 113.]
    (No. 99-1866
    Submitted January 12, 2000
    Decided May 31, 2000.)
    
      
      Jonathan E. Coughlan, Disciplinary Counsel, and Kenneth R. Donchatz, Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator.
    
      Michael T. Gunner, for respondent.
   Per Curiam.

We adopt the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the board. Respondent’s repeated attempts to mislead his client constitute a course of conduct in violation of DR 1-102(A)(4), which warrants an actual suspension from the practice of law. Disciplinary Counsel v. Fowerbaugh (1995), 74 Ohio St.3d 187, 191, 658 N.E.2d 237, 240. Respondent is hereby suspended from the practice of law in Ohio for six months. Cost are taxed to respondent.

Judgment accordingly.

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