Case Name: Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Wallace
Court: Supreme Court of Ohio
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 2000-05-31
Citations: 89 Ohio St. 3d 113
Docket Number: No. 99-1866
Parties: Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Wallace.
Judges: Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Ohio State Reports, Third Service
Volume: 89
Pages: 113–114

Head Matter:
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.

Opinion:
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.