Disciplinary Counsel v. Darling (Slip Opinion)
Citations
- 167 Ohio St. 3d 382
- 192 N.E.3d 487
- 2022 Ohio 870
Syllabus
Attorneys—Misconduct—Violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct, including failure to safeguard a client's settlement funds and making false statements to his client about the status of those funds, misdemeanor theft conviction for passing bad checks, and dishonest conduct during the ensuing disciplinary proceedings—Indefinite suspension from the practice of law.
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- holding that because defendant did not bring pretrial motion contesting the indictment, his argument about its sufficiency was waived
- “A strategic decision by counsel will be deemed constitutionally ineffective only if it was manifestly unreasonable at the time it was made”
- while following undercover officer, defendant “could have decided to return to work and not commit the crime”
- “it was not error to decline to repeat portions of the main charge that were beyond the scope of the jury’s question [and given that] the supplemental instruction appropriately responded to the jury’s question”
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Per Curiam
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.