mitigating and aggravating factors in Ohio

2012Disciplinary Counsel v. Broeren, 115 Ohio St.3d 473 , 2007-Ohio-5251 , 875 N.E.2d 935 , ¶ 21. {¶ 12} After finding that Miller had committed the stipulated violations, the board weighed the mitigating and aggravating factors.

2012Disciplinary Counsel v. Broeren, 115 Ohio St.3d 473 , 2007-Ohio-5251 , 875 N.E.2d 935 , ¶ 21. {¶ 19} The board found two mitigating factors: (1) the absence of a prior disciplinary record and (2) the imposition of other penalties or sanctions by virtue of his negotiated misdemeanor no-contest plea.

2020Bar Assn. v. Vivo, 156 Ohio St.3d 496 , 2019-Ohio-1858 , 129 N.E.3d 431 (imposing a conditionally stayed six-month suspension on an attorney who had neglected a client’s bankruptcy matter and failed to properly communicate with the client). {¶ 16} Here, the board concluded that a stayed six-month suspension is more appropriate than a public reprimand—mostly because of the relevant mitigating and aggravating factors.

2020Bar Assn. v. Vivo, 156 Ohio St.3d 496 , 2019-Ohio-1858 , 129 N.E.3d 431 (imposing a conditionally stayed six-month suspension on an attorney who had neglected a client’s bankruptcy matter and failed to properly communicate with the client). {¶ 16} Here, the board concluded that a stayed six-month suspension is more appropriate than a public reprimand—mostly because of the relevant mitigating and aggravating factors.

2017Bar Assn. v. Sherman , 126 Ohio St.3d 20 , 2010-Ohio-2469 , 929 N.E.2d 1061 (adopting the parties' consent-to-discipline agreement and imposing a stayed nine-month suspension on an attorney who neglected a client's matter, voluntarily dismissed that client's case without her knowledge, and failed to advise another client that he did not maintain malpractice insurance; mitigating factors included the absence of prior discipline, lack of a dishonest motive, and cooperation in the disciplinary process). {¶ 16} Considering LaFayette's misconduct and the relevant mitigating and aggravating factors,

2017Bar Assn. v. Sherman , 126 Ohio St.3d 20 , 2010-Ohio-2469 , 929 N.E.2d 1061 (adopting the parties' consent-to-discipline agreement and imposing a stayed nine-month suspension on an attorney who neglected a client's matter, voluntarily dismissed that client's case without her knowledge, and failed to advise another client that he did not maintain malpractice insurance; mitigating factors included the absence of prior discipline, lack of a dishonest motive, and cooperation in the disciplinary process). {¶ 16} Considering LaFayette's misconduct and the relevant mitigating and aggravating factors,

2016Applicable precedent {¶ 19} To support its recommendation of disbarment, the board cited Disciplinary Counsel v. Sabroff, 123 Ohio St.3d 182 , 2009-Ohio-4205 , 915 N.E.2d 307 , and Disciplinary Counsel v. Caywood, 74 Ohio St.3d 596 , 660 N.E.2d 1148 (1996).

2016Applicable precedent {¶ 19} To support its recommendation of disbarment, the board cited Disciplinary Counsel v. Sabroff, 123 Ohio St.3d 182 , 2009-Ohio-4205 , 915 N.E.2d 307 , and Disciplinary Counsel v. Caywood, 74 Ohio St.3d 596 , 660 N.E.2d 1148 (1996).

2016Applicable precedent {¶ 19} To support its recommendation of disbarment, the board cited Disciplinary Counsel v. Sabroff, 123 Ohio St.3d 182 , 2009-Ohio-4205 , 915 N.E.2d 307 , and Disciplinary Counsel v. Caywood, 74 Ohio St.3d 596 , 660 N.E.2d 1148 (1996).

2016Applicable precedent {¶ 19} To support its recommendation of disbarment, the board cited Disciplinary Counsel v. Sabroff, 123 Ohio St.3d 182 , 2009-Ohio-4205 , 915 N.E.2d 307 , and Disciplinary Counsel v. Caywood, 74 Ohio St.3d 596 , 660 N.E.2d 1148 (1996).

2013We agree with the board’s findings regarding the relevant mitigating and aggravating factors. {¶25} For precedent, we have previously recognized that “an attorney’s neglect of legal matters and failure to cooperate in the ensuing disciplinary investigation warrant an indefinite suspension.” Disciplinary Counsel v. Mathewson, 113 Ohio St.3d 365 , 2007-Ohio-2076 , 865 N.E.2d 891, ¶ 19 ; see also Disciplinary Counsel v. Hoff, 124 Ohio St.3d 269 , 2010-Ohio-136 , 921 N.E.2d 636 , *241 Jonathan E.

2013We agree with the board’s findings regarding the relevant mitigating and aggravating factors. {¶25} For precedent, we have previously recognized that “an attorney’s neglect of legal matters and failure to cooperate in the ensuing disciplinary investigation warrant an indefinite suspension.” Disciplinary Counsel v. Mathewson, 113 Ohio St.3d 365 , 2007-Ohio-2076 , 865 N.E.2d 891, ¶ 19 ; see also Disciplinary Counsel v. Hoff, 124 Ohio St.3d 269 , 2010-Ohio-136 , 921 N.E.2d 636 , *241 Jonathan E.

2009Comparable Cases {¶ 19} For attorneys who have commingled funds or failed to properly maintain their IOLTAs, the sanction has ranged from a stayed six-month suspension, Disciplinary Counsel v. LaRue, 122 Ohio St.3d 445 , 2009-Ohio-3604 , 912 N.E.2d 101 , to an indefinite suspension, Wise, 108 Ohio St.3d 381 , 2006-Ohio-1194 , 843 N.E.2d 1198 .

2009Comparable Cases {¶ 19} For attorneys who have commingled funds or failed to properly maintain their IOLTAs, the sanction has ranged from a stayed six-month suspension, Disciplinary Counsel v. LaRue, 122 Ohio St.3d 445 , 2009-Ohio-3604 , 912 N.E.2d 101 , to an indefinite suspension, Wise, 108 Ohio St.3d 381 , 2006-Ohio-1194 , 843 N.E.2d 1198 .

2009Comparable Cases {¶ 19} For attorneys who have commingled funds or failed to properly maintain their IOLTAs, the sanction has ranged from a stayed six-month suspension, Disciplinary Counsel v. LaRue, 122 Ohio St.3d 445 , 2009-Ohio-3604 , 912 N.E.2d 101 , to an indefinite suspension, Wise, 108 Ohio St.3d 381 , 2006-Ohio-1194 , 843 N.E.2d 1198 .

2009Comparable Cases {¶ 19} For attorneys who have commingled funds or failed to properly maintain their IOLTAs, the sanction has ranged from a stayed six-month suspension, Disciplinary Counsel v. LaRue, 122 Ohio St.3d 445 , 2009-Ohio-3604 , 912 N.E.2d 101 , to an indefinite suspension, Wise, 108 Ohio St.3d 381 , 2006-Ohio-1194 , 843 N.E.2d 1198 .

2006Based on the mitigating and aggravating factors determined by the board, we also accept the recommended sanction. {¶ 14} In Disciplinary Counsel v. May, 106 Ohio St.3d 385 , 2005-Ohio-5320 , 835 N.E.2d 372 , another lawyer’s addiction to a painkilling prescription drug resulted in his being charged with two violations of R.C. 2925.22(A).