Opinion ID: 6351459
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: D.R. 9-102(B)(4) — Dealing with failure to deliver to the client properties in the possession of the lawyer which the client is entitled to receive;

Text: F. D.R. 1-102(A)(5) — Dealing with conduct which is prejudicial to the administration of justice. The committee did not find that respondent was in violation of: A. D.R. 7-101(A)(l) — Dealing with failing to seek lawful objectives of a client by reasonably available means; B. D.R. 7-101(A)(3) — Dealing with prejudicing or damaging a client during the course of the professional relationship. The Assistant Disciplinary Counsel recommended “public censure” as the appropriate punishment in this matter. The hearing committee unanimously accepted the recommendation of Disciplinary Counsel and recommended public censure of respondent.