 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Cleveland Bar Association v. Santarelli6/23/1999
, Ohio. In November 1992, respondent informed Williams that he would complete the task within three to four weeks. Williams's subsequent attempts to reach respondent yielded no response. In May 1993, Williams terminated respondent's representation of him because respondent had not completed the requested lot split.
The panel concluded that respondent's conduct in the Knipschield and Williams matters violated DR 6-101(A)(3) (neglecting an entrusted legal matter), and that his conduct in the Mackey matter violated DR 7-102(A)(1) (filing a suit when he knows or it is obvious that such action would serve merely to harass or maliciously injure another).
The panel recommended that respondent be indefinitely suspended from the practice of law in Ohio. The board adopted the findings, Conclusions, and recommendation of the panel.
We adopt the findings, Conclusions, and recommendation of the board. An indefinite suspension is an appropriate sanction for respondent's conduct, which occurred during the same time period as the conduct in his previous disciplinary case. See, e.g., Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Chandler (1998), 81 Ohio St.3d 491, 692 N.E.2d 568, and Columbus Bar Assn. v. Finneran (1997), 80 Ohio St.3d 428, 687 N.E.2d 405, in which we imposed an indefinite suspension for conduct that included violations of DR 6-101(A)(3) and 7-102(A)(1). Respondent is indefinitely suspended from the practice of law in Ohio. Costs taxed to respondent.
Judgment accordingly.
Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.
|