Case Name: Cincinnati Bar Association v. Randolph
Court: Supreme Court of Ohio
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1999-04-07
Citations: 85 Ohio St. 3d 325
Docket Number: No. 98-2685
Parties: Cincinnati Bar Association v. Randolph.
Judges: Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Ohio State Reports, Third Service
Volume: 85
Pages: 325–327

Head Matter:
Cincinnati Bar Association v. Randolph.
[Cite as Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Randolph (1999), 85 Ohio St.3d 325.]
(No. 98-2685
Submitted February 10, 1999
Decided April 7, 1999.)
Nancy J. Gill, G. Mitchell Lippert and Richard H. Johnson, for relator.
John H. Burlew and Charles W. Kettlewell, for respondent.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
We adopt the findings, conclusions, and x-ecommendation of the board. A public reprimand is the appropiiate sanction for respondent's isolated act of misconduct. See Akron Bar Assn. v. Naumoff (1991), 62 Ohio St.3d 72, 578 N.E.2d 452, and Mahoning Cty. Bar Assn. v. Gilmartin (1991), 62 Ohio St.3d 10, 577 N.E.2d 350, where we publicly reprimanded and ordered attorneys to make full restitution to clients for violating DR 2-106(A). As the board found, once respondent became aware of his error in retaining a fee from the burial fee account, he made complete restitution to the beneficiaries of the testamexxtary trust and accepted complete responsibility for his actions. Respondent is hereby publicly reprimanded. Costs taxed to respondent.
Judgment accordingly.
Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.