Disciplinary Counsel v. Zingarelli
Case Details
- Judge(s)
- Douglas, J.
- Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
- Published
- Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
- bench trial
Related Laws
No specific laws identified for this ruling.
Outcome
Attorney Larry Zingarelli was found to have committed multiple counts of professional misconduct including dishonesty, fee violations, commingling funds, and practicing law while suspended, resulting in an indefinite suspension from the practice of law.
Excerpt
Attorneys at law—Misconduct—Indefinite suspension—Engaging in dishonest and deceitful conduct—Engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice—Practicing law in a jurisdiction where to do so would be in violation of the regulations of the profession in that jurisdiction—Failing to disclose information required by law to be disclosed—Commingling funds—Improper division of attorney fees—Failing to promptly return unearned fee after withdrawal from employment—Charging a clearly excessive fee—Without solicitation, recommending one's self for employment to a nonlawyer—Harm to a client is not a necessary element of a violation of DR 9-102(A).
What This Ruling Means
This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.
Similar Rulings
Workers' compensation—Temporary-total-disability compensation—R.C. 4123.56—Employee who had already been terminated for violation of employment policies before his shoulder surgery was not "unable to work" as "direct result of an impairment arising from an injury or occupational disease" under plain language of R.C. 4123.56(F) and thus was not entitled to receive temporary-total-disability compensation—Court of appeals' judgment reversed and writ granted.
Quo warranto—Mandamus—Appellants failed to challenge court of appeals' judgment dismissing their quo warranto claim on basis of laches and therefore waived that argument—Court of appeals' determination that appellants could not establish entitlement to city-council offices or that appellees were unlawfully holding the positions affirmed—Court of appeals' denial of request for writ of mandamus ordering continued payment of salaries and benefits as moot affirmed.
Browse Related
Facing something similar at work?
Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.
This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.