Skip to main content
Ohio Supreme Court· 2/28/1996

Disciplinary Counsel v. King

Citations

  • 1996 Ohio 238
  • 74 Ohio St. 3d 612

Syllabus

Attorneys at law—Misconduct—Six-month suspension—Deliberately false statements to a client—Neglect of an entrusted legal matter—Conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation—Prior offenses considered as a factor that may justify an increase in the degree of discipline for subsequent misconduct.

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

2 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

4 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases with this name

Sourced 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.