Akron Bar Ass'n v. Barron

707 N.E.2d 850, 85 Ohio St. 3d 167
Ohio Supreme Court·Decided March 24, 1999·No. No. 98-2215·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Practicing law while under suspension for failure to meet continuing legal education requirements and pay the imposed fine warranted indefinite suspension in Toledo Bar Assn. v. Christensen (1996), 77 Ohio St.3d 71, [168] 671 N.E.2d 30, and such a sanction is also warranted in this case. Respondent is hereby indefinitely suspended from the practice- of law in Ohio and remains subject to the conditions of our order of June 18, 1993. Costs taxed to respondent.

Judgment accordingly.

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Akron Bar Ass'n v. Barron, 707 N.E.2d 850, 85 Ohio St. 3d 167 (Ohio 1999).

707 N.E.2d 850 (Akron Bar Ass'n v. Barron) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Disciplinary Counsel v. Eisler
34 N.E.3d 99 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2015)
Disciplinary Counsel v. Seabrook
2012 Ohio 3933 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2012)
Toledo Bar Assn. v. Woodley
2012 Ohio 2458 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2012)
Disciplinary Counsel v. Freeman
2010 Ohio 3824 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2010)
Disciplinary Counsel v. Higgins
117 Ohio St. 3d 473 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2008)
Toledo Bar Ass'n v. Crandall
786 N.E.2d 872 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2003)