Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Stidham
Case Details
- Judge(s)
- Alice Robie Resnick, 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 Chuck Ray Stidham was found to have committed multiple disciplinary violations including mishandling client funds, neglect of legal matters, and misconduct. He received a two-year suspension with the second year stayed.
Excerpt
Attorneys at law—Misconduct—Two-year suspension with second year stayed—Failure to deposit client funds into an identifiable bank account—Failure to maintain records of funds and render appropriate accounts—Failure to promptly pay funds that client is entitled to receive—Neglect of an entrusted legal matter—Failure to seek lawful objectives of client—Failure to carry out contract of employment—Prejudicing or damaging client—Concealing or knowingly failing to disclose what attorney is required by law to reveal—Disregarding a standing rule of a tribunal—Conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation—Conduct adversely reflecting on fitness to practice law—Using firm name containing name of one not a member of the firm—Holding oneself out as having a partnership with one who is not a partner.
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.