Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Rockman
Case Details
- Status
- Published
- Procedural Posture
- default judgment
Related Laws
No specific laws identified for this ruling.
Outcome
Attorney Thomas G. Rockman was permanently disbarred from practicing law in Ohio after the Cuyahoga County Bar Association proved multiple counts of misconduct including misrepresenting legal work, failing to file claims, and engaging in dishonest conduct with clients.
Excerpt
Attorneys at law—Misconduct—Permanent disbarment—Engaging in illegal conduct involving moral turpitude—Engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation—Engaging in conduct adversely reflecting on fitness to practice law—Neglect of an entrusted legal matter—Failing to carry out contract for professional employment—Prejudicing or damaging client during course of professional relationship—Engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice—Entering into an agreement for, charging, or collecting an illegal or clearly excessive fee—Handling a legal matter without adequate preparation—Concealing or knowingly failing to disclose that which is required by law to be revealed—Failing to maintain complete records of all funds coming into lawyer's possession and render appropriate accounts thereof—Practicing in a jurisdiction where doing so is in violation of the regulations of that jurisdiction—Neglecting or refusing to assist or testify in a disciplinary investigation or hearing.
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.
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. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.