From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Akron Bar Assn. v. Jaynes

Supreme Court of Ohio
Jun 30, 1982
436 N.E.2d 1359 (Ohio 1982)

Opinion

D.D. No. 82-10

Decided June 30, 1982.

Attorneys at law — Misconduct — One-year suspension — Acts warranting.

ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline.

The Akron Bar Association, relator herein, filed a complaint with the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline pursuant to Gov. R.V, charging Thomas L. Jaynes, respondent herein, with three violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The board, following a private hearing, found that respondent did violate DR9-102(B)(4) of the Code in that he did not promptly pay or deliver to a client funds in his possession to which the client was entitled. The board recommended that for this violation respondent be suspended from the practice of law for one year.

Mr. Matthew J. Koch, Mr. James R. Hinton and Mr. David Friedman, for relator.

Messrs. Vanik, Monroe, Zucco Kaselak and Mr. William T. Monroe, for respondent.


Upon examination of the record and the findings of the board of commissioners, we conclude that there are ample facts to justify the board's finding that respondent violated DR9-102(B)(4) of the Code of Professional Responsibility and the recommendation of a one-year suspension from the practice of law.

Accordingly, respondent is hereby suspended from the practice of law for one year.

Judgment accordingly.

CELEBREZZE, C.J., W. BROWN, SWEENEY, LOCHER, HOLMES, C. BROWN and KRUPANSKY, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Akron Bar Assn. v. Jaynes

Supreme Court of Ohio
Jun 30, 1982
436 N.E.2d 1359 (Ohio 1982)
Case details for

Akron Bar Assn. v. Jaynes

Case Details

Full title:AKRON BAR ASSOCIATION v. JAYNES

Court:Supreme Court of Ohio

Date published: Jun 30, 1982

Citations

436 N.E.2d 1359 (Ohio 1982)
436 N.E.2d 1359

Citing Cases

Disciplinary Counsel v. Morton

As a consequence, we must reject respondent's plea for a less severe penalty. Past disciplinary proceedings…

Akron Bar Assn. v. Jaynes

Based on the foregoing, the panel found that respondent had violated DR 6-101(A)(2) and (3). It also noted…