Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Rockmael
Case Details
- Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
- Published
- Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
- Disciplinary proceeding resulting in permanent disbarment
Related Laws
No specific laws identified for this ruling.
Outcome
Attorney Rockmael was permanently disbarred by the Cuyahoga County Bar Association for multiple instances of misconduct including illegal conduct involving moral turpitude, dishonesty, fraud, misrepresentation, client fund mismanagement, neglect, and failure to cooperate in disciplinary investigation.
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—Withdrawing from employment and failing to promptly refund any fee paid in advance that was not earned—Neglect of an entrusted legal matter—Attempting to exonerate or limit liability to client for personal malpractice—Failing to carry out contract of employment for legal services—Damaging or prejudicing client during course of professional relationship—Failing to maintain complete records of all funds coming into possession and render appropriate accounts to client regarding them—Failing to promptly pay client funds in lawyer's possession that client is entitled to receive—Failing to cooperate in disciplinary investigation.
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.