Akron Bar Ass'n v. Brustoski

Ohio Supreme Court

Akron Bar Ass'n v. Brustoski

628 N.E.2d 1334, 68 Ohio St. 3d 451

Ohio Supreme Court·Decided March 23, 1994·No. No. 93-2531·Published

Opinions

Per Curiam.

We concur with the board’s findings of fact, but find disbarment to be the appropriate disciplinary action. For over one year, respondent abused his positions as a trusted former employee, an attorney, and an officer of the court to commit felonies. Respondent’s offenses disrupted the orderly adminis[453]*453tration of justice and warranted actual incarceration in prison for at least three years. Accordingly, respondent is hereby permanently disbarred from the practice of law in Ohio. Costs taxed to respondent.

Judgment accordingly.

Moyer, C.J., Resnick, F.E. Sweeney and Pfeifer, JJ., concur. A.W. Sweeney, Douglas and Wright, JJ., dissent.

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

Per Curiam.

We concur with the board’s findings of fact, but find disbarment to be the appropriate disciplinary action. For over one year, respondent abused his positions as a trusted former employee, an attorney, and an officer of the court to commit felonies. Respondent’s offenses disrupted the orderly adminis[453]*453tration of justice and warranted actual incarceration in prison for at least three years. Accordingly, respondent is hereby permanently disbarred from the practice of law in Ohio. Costs taxed to respondent.

Judgment accordingly.

Moyer, C.J., Resnick, F.E. Sweeney and Pfeifer, JJ., concur. A.W. Sweeney, Douglas and Wright, JJ., dissent.

Akron Bar Ass'n v. Brustoski, 628 N.E.2d 1334, 68 Ohio St. 3d 451 (Ohio 1994).

Pincite

628 N.E.2d 1334 (Akron Bar Ass'n v. Brustoski) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.