Lorain Cty. Bar Assn. v. Ross
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[Cite as Lorain Cty. Bar Assn. v. Ross, 97 Ohio St.3d 224, 2002-Ohio-5803.] LORAIN COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION v. ROSS. [Cite as Lorain Cty. Bar Assn. v. Ross, 97 Ohio St.3d 224, 2002-Ohio-5803.] Attorneys at law Misconduct Public reprimand Failing to cooperate in an investigation of professional misconduct. (No. 2002-0700 Submitted July 24, 2002 Decided November 6, 2002.) ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 01-01. __________________ Per Curiam. {¶1} In this case, we have reviewed the recommendation of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline that respondent, Michael A. Ross of Avon, Ohio, Attorney Registration No. 0061243, be publicly reprimanded for having violated Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) (failing to cooperate in an investigation of professional misconduct). Upon review of the record, we adopt the board s findings and recommendation. {¶2} Relator, Lorain County Bar Association, charged respondent with failure to cooperate in a disciplinary investigation by a complaint filed with the board on January 29, 2001. A panel of the board heard the cause, found the violation of Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G), and recommended a public reprimand. The panel determined that while the issue of respondent s conduct in his representation of a client was no longer before it, respondent s conceded failure to respond promptly or at all to information requests constituted a dereliction of his professional obligations. In making its recommendation, the panel considered respondent s lack of a prior disciplinary record, numerous character references, service to the community, and remorse. SUPREME COURT OF OHIO {¶3} The board adopted the panel s findings and recommendation. We agree with the board that a public reprimand is appropriate. Respondent is therefore publicly reprimanded for having violated Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G). Costs are taxed to respondent. Judgment accordingly. MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur. __________________ Fauver, Keyse-Walker & Donovan and John L. Keyse-Walker, for relator. William T. Doyle, for respondent. __________________ 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
