Ohio Supreme Court April 1, 1987, D.D. No. 86-35 (Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Lile)

Per Curiam.

Upon review of the record, arguments, and objections before the court, we concur with the board’s findings that, by commingling client funds with general office funds, respondent violated DR 9-102(A) and (B); and that his further conduct detailed above violated DR 1-102(A)(4) and ,1-102(A)(6).