Disciplinary Counsel v. Simecek
Citations
- 1998 Ohio 92
- 83 Ohio St. 3d 320
Syllabus
Attorneys at law—Misconduct—Six-month suspension with entire sanction stayed on conditions—Failing to maintain client funds in an identifiable bank account—Engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation—Engaging in conduct adversely reflecting on fitness to practice law.
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- the addition of misconduct charges after the record is closed and without fair notice to the attorney “fails to pass the test of procedural due process”
- the addition of misconduct charges after the record is closed and without fair notice to the attorney “fails to pass the test of procedural due process”
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Cited by
7 cases in this archive cite this case.
- Cleveland Bar Assn. v. GlatkiOhio Supreme Court· 2000-04-05· cited 39×
- State ex rel. Potts v. Comm. on Continuing Legal Edn.Ohio Supreme Court· 2001-10-17· cited 8×
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Reinheimer (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court· 2020-08-06· cited 4×
- Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. ReisenfeldOhio Supreme Court· 1998-11-18· cited 4×
- Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v. JudgeOhio Supreme Court· 2002-10-02· cited 4×
- Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. SanzOhio Supreme Court· 2011-02-24· cited 3×
- Disciplinary Counsel v. VanBibberOhio Supreme Court· 2024-05-07· cited 2×
Cites
2 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
Other cases named Disciplinary Counsel v. Simecek
1 other CourtListener record shares this case 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.