Search results
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO Disciplinary Counsel v. Brueggeman, 128 Ohio St.3d 206, 2010-Ohio-6149, 943 N.E.2d 509. We also suspended him from the practice of law for six days in November 2013 for his failure to timely register for the 2013-2015 biennium.
Jan 11, 2021 · Read Disciplinary Counsel v. Brueggeman, 2021 Ohio 21, see flags on bad law, and search Casetext’s comprehensive legal database.
brueggeman. [Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Brueggeman, ___ Ohio St.3d ___, 2021-Ohio-21.] (No. 2019-1734—Submitted January 7, 2021—Decided January 11, 2021.)
Apr 24, 2020 · Disciplinary Counsel v. Brueggeman (Ohio, No. 2020-OHIO-1578, April 24, 2020). Attorney Edward Brueggeman practiced law in Ohio. In 2010, the state imposed a conditionally stayed one-year suspension on him for neglecting client matters and failing to communicate with clients.
the court, pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(12)(A)(3), suspended respondent for a period of two years, with the final 18 months stayed on condition, finds that respondent has substantially complied with that order and with the provisions of Gov.Bar R.
Apr 23, 2020 · Brueggeman received a one-year, fully stayed suspension in 2010 for his neglect of four client matters, failing to reasonably communicate with affected clients, and not cooperating with the disciplinary investigations.
People also ask
What happened to Brueggeman?
Why was Edward Brueggeman suspended?
Who is Edward Brueggeman?
Specifically, the board found a violation of Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(h) based on respondent’s loss of the client’s files and his failure to resolve the client’s case, which forced the client to resolve it without respondent’s help. We agree that this conduct violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(h).
