79 Ohio St. 3d 389

Cincinnati Bar Association v. Harvey.

[Cite as Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Harvey (1997), 79 Ohio St.3d 389.]

(No. 97-811

Submitted June 11, 1997

Decided September 24, 1997.)

*390Peter Rosenwald and Barbara K. Barden, for relator.

Per Curiam.

We adopt the findings and conclusions of the board. An attorney’s failure to perform legal services for which he has been engaged and then lying to a client about the status of the case has warranted suspension. Dayton Bar Assn. v. Andrews (1997), 79 Ohio St.3d 109, 679 N.E.2d 1093; Disciplinary Counsel v. Crowley (1996), 176 Ohio St.3d 365, 667 N.E.2d 1183; Disciplinary Counsel v. Trumbo (1996), 76 Ohio St.3d 369, 667 N.E.2d 1186. In this case respondent compounded his neglect of a client by lying and attempting to mislead relator in its investigation. Unlike Andrews, Crowley, and Trumbo, we find no mitigating circumstances here. We hereby indefinitely suspend respondent from the practice of law in Ohio. Costs taxed to respondent.

Judgment accordingly.

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnigk, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.

Cincinnati Bar Ass'n v. Harvey
79 Ohio St. 3d 389

Case Details

Name
Cincinnati Bar Ass'n v. Harvey
Decision Date
Sep 24, 1997
Citations

79 Ohio St. 3d 389

Jurisdiction
Ohio

References

Referencing

Nothing yet... Still searching!

Referenced By

Nothing yet... Still searching!