Adelstein — Ohio Supreme Court accepted attorney’s resignation with disciplinary action pending

Case
In re Resignation of Adelstein
Court
Supreme Court of Ohio
Judge
DeWine, J.; Deters, J.; Hawkins, J.; Shanahan, J.; Kennedy, C.J.; Fischer, J.
Date Decided
September 25, 2026
Docket No.
2026-1217
Topics
Attorney Discipline, Resignation, Professional Responsibility
Source
Read the full opinion

Background

Carol Beth Adelstein, an Ohio attorney admitted in 1988, submitted an application for retirement or resignation under Gov.Bar R. VI(11). The court referred the application to disciplinary counsel, whose report was filed under seal.

The matter came before the Supreme Court of Ohio while disciplinary action was pending. The published order does not describe the underlying misconduct or the contents of disciplinary counsel’s sealed report.

The Court’s Holding

The Supreme Court of Ohio accepted Adelstein’s resignation as a resignation with disciplinary action pending under Gov.Bar R. VI(11)(C). The order withdrew her authority to practice law in Ohio, directed that her name be stricken from the roll of attorneys, and required her to surrender her certificate of admission within 30 days.

The court also barred Adelstein from practicing law or holding herself out as an authorized attorney and restricted any future work for attorneys or law firms. It ordered her to protect existing clients’ interests, return client property and unearned fees, account for trust property, notify affected clients and opposing parties, file proof of compliance, and reimburse qualifying awards made by the Lawyers’ Fund for Client Protection.

Key Takeaways

  • The court treated Adelstein’s departure from the Ohio bar as a resignation with disciplinary action pending, not an ordinary retirement or resignation.
  • Adelstein lost all rights and privileges to practice law in Ohio and must comply with detailed client-notification, property-return, and reporting requirements.
  • Four justices concurred; Chief Justice Kennedy dissented, Justice Fischer dissented based on his earlier opinions in similar resignation matters, and Justice Brunner did not participate.

Why It Matters

A resignation accepted under Gov.Bar R. VI(11)(C) formally removes an attorney from practice while preserving the disciplinary character of the departure. The order also illustrates the safeguards imposed to protect clients, courts, opposing parties, and the Lawyers’ Fund for Client Protection when an attorney resigns with discipline pending.

✉️ Get tomorrow’s cases before your first coffee
Daily Case Law is our free morning digest — the most substantive new decisions, filtered to your jurisdictions and topics, each linking back here for the full analysis.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top