neutral
Cited (no substantive treatment)
0.2 score
Office of Disciplinary Counsel
v.
Lile
v.
Lile
D.D. No. 86-35.
Ohio Supreme Court.
Apr 1, 1987.
505 N.E.2d 955
1987 Ohio LEXIS 251
J. Warren Bettis, disciplinary counsel, and Mark H. Aultman, for relator., Crabbe, Brown, Jones, Potts & Schmidt and Larry H. James, for respondent. '
Brown, Douglas, Eighth, Holmes, Locher, Moyer, Patton, Sweeney, Wright.
Cited by 1 opinion | Published
Per Curiam.
Upon review of the record, arguments, and objections before the court, we concur with the board’s findings that, by commingling client funds with general office funds, respondent violated DR 9-102(A) and (B); and that his further conduct detailed above violated DR 1-102(A)(4) and ,1-102(A)(6). ’
Finding respondent’s breaches of professional responsibility sufficiently egregious to warrant suspension beyond one year, we order that respondent be suspended from the practice of law in Ohio for a definite term of two years. It is further ordered that the costs of these proceedings be taxed to respondent.
Judgment accordingly.
Moyer, C.J., Patton, Locher, Holmes, Douglas, Wright and H. Brown, JJ., concur. Patton, J., of the Eighth Appellate District, sitting for Sweeney, J.