disciplinary investigation. His actions were prejudicial to the administration of justice and adversely reflect on his fitness to practice law. As the panel and board found, on the evidence before us, “we can only conclude that his conduct demonstrates dishonesty, perversity, and recalcitrance.” {¶ 21} We have imposed an indefinite suspension for comparable misconduct in the past. See, e.g., Disciplinary Counsel v. Mitchell, 124 Ohio St.3d 266, 2010-Ohio-135, 921 N.E.2d 634 (imposing an indefinite suspension on an attorney who attempted to deceive a juvenile court magistrate as to his identity and the status of his license to practice law while under an attorney-registration suspension), and Disciplinary Counsel v. Freeman, 126 Ohio St.3d 389, 2010-Ohio-3824, 934 N.E.2d 328, ¶ 14 (<HOLDING>). Therefore, we hold that an indefinite
holding that we have jurisdiction to entertain such claims recognizing that we have routinely imposed indefinite suspensions on attorneys who continued to practice law after we have suspended their licenses for ole and registration violations holding that we will overturn the factual findings of the district court only where we have a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed recognizing that we review the sentence imposed by a district court under the abuse of discretion standard holding the district courts noconsent finding was not clearly erroneous because the individual felt she was under arrest and had to submit to the patdown search in part based on the officers saying this is what we do we talk to people we search peoples bags we pat search people this is what we do everyday