Cincinnati Bar Ass'n v. Bortz

658 N.E.2d 252, 74 Ohio St. 3d 207
Ohio Supreme Court·Decided January 10, 1996·No. No. 95-1669·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinions

Per Curiam.

Upon review of the record, we concur in the board’s finding of misconduct and its recommendation. Respondent is therefore publicly reprimanded for his violation of DR 5-101(A). Costs taxed to respondent.

Judgment accordingly.

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer and Cook, JJ., concur. Wright, J., dissents.

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

Cincinnati Bar Ass'n v. Bortz, 658 N.E.2d 252, 74 Ohio St. 3d 207 (Ohio 1996).

658 N.E.2d 252 (Cincinnati Bar Ass'n v. Bortz) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Toledo Bar Assn. v. Cook
2002 Ohio 5787 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2002)
Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Bortz
1996 Ohio 270 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1996)