Disciplinary Counsel v. Frease, No. 95-2130

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Ohio
Writing for the CourtPER CURIAM; MOYER; COOK
Citation660 N.E.2d 1156,74 Ohio St.3d 607
PartiesOFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. FREASE.
Docket NumberNo. 95-2130
Decision Date28 February 1996

Page 607

74 Ohio St.3d 607
660 N.E.2d 1156
OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL
v.
FREASE.
No. 95-2130.
Supreme Court of Ohio.
Submitted Dec. 6, 1995.
Decided Feb. 28, 1996.

Geoffrey Stern, Disciplinary Counsel, and Sally Ann Steuk, Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, Columbus, for relator.

Jerry F. Whitmer, John C. Fickes and John A. Schwemler, Akron, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

After reviewing the record, we agree with the board. We adopt its findings of fact and conclusions of law and indefinitely suspend respondent from the practice of law in Ohio. Furthermore, as a condition for reinstatement, respondent must make full restitution to his clients with interest according to the judgment rate. We tax costs to respondent.

Judgment accordingly.

MOYER, C.J., and DOUGLAS, WRIGHT, RESNICK, FRANCIS E. SWEENEY, Sr. and PFEIFER, JJ., concur.

COOK, J., dissents and would disbar.

---------------

1 The complaints, the stipulations, and the reports of the panel and the board all mistakenly cite DR 6-101(A)(2) for neglect of an entrusted legal matter. The correct citation is DR 6-101(A)(3).

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 practice notes
  • Part II
    • United States
    • Federal Register December 12, 2003
    • December 12, 2003
    ...competently act or zealously represent a client by failing to file a trademark application); Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Frease, 660 N.E.2d 1156 (Ohio 1996) (holding attorney neglected legal matter entrusted to him when he did not file applications for trademark registration). The def......
  • Practice and procedure: Patent and trademark cases rules of practice; representation of others before Patent and Trademark Office,
    • United States
    • Federal Register December 12, 2003
    • December 12, 2003
    ...competently act or zealously represent a client by failing to file a trademark application); Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Frease, 660 N.E.2d 1156 (Ohio 1996) (holding attorney neglected legal matter entrusted to him when he did not file applications for trademark registration). The def......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT