-
Per Curiam. We adopt the findings, conclusions, and x-ecommendation of the board. A public reprimand is the appropiiate sanction for respondent’s isolated act of misconduct. See Akron Bar Assn. v. Naumoff (1991), 62 Ohio St.3d 72, 578 N.E.2d 452, and Mahoning Cty. Bar Assn. v. Gilmartin (1991), 62 Ohio St.3d 10, 577 N.E.2d 350, where we publicly reprimanded and ordered attorneys to make full restitution to clients for violating DR 2-106(A). As the board found, once respondent became aware of his error in retaining a fee from the burial fee account, he made complete restitution to the beneficiaries of the testamexxtary
*327 trust and accepted complete responsibility for his actions. Respondent is hereby publicly reprimanded. Costs taxed to respondent.Judgment accordingly.
Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.
Document Info
Docket Number: No. 98-2685
Citation Numbers: 85 Ohio St. 3d 325, 708 N.E.2d 192
Judges: Cook, Douglas, Moyer, Pfeifer, Resnick, Stratton, Sweeney
Filed Date: 4/7/1999
Precedential Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 10/18/2024