Cincinnati Bar Ass'n v. Farr

Ohio Supreme Court

Cincinnati Bar Ass'n v. Farr

648 N.E.2d 1338, 72 Ohio St. 3d 224

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedMay 24, 1995

DocketNo. 94-2663

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 648 N.E.2d 1338 (Cincinnati Bar Ass'n v. Farr) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Cincinnati Bar Ass'n v. Farr, 648 N.E.2d 1338, 72 Ohio St. 3d 224 (Ohio 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

We agree that respondent violated DR 1 — 102(A)(5) and (6), 3-101(B), 6-101(A)(3), 7-101(A)(2), and 9-102(A)(2), as found by the board. However, we cannot allow respondent’s immediate return to practice law, even under the comprehensive conditions the board has recommended.

Respondent has attempted rehabilitation on several occasions, including one time in 1990, in which he claims to have abstained from alcohol for ten months. This history manifests his propensity to relapse, and we see no convincing evidence in the record that he will not do so again.

At the time of the hearing, respondent was not under the care of a physician or counselor, he did not zealously participate in A.A. or participate at all in OLAP, and, most unfortunately, he continued to consume alcohol. With the exception of the quantity of alcohol consumed, these had also been respondent’s circumstances prior to his most recent admission to a substance abuse program. Similarly, [228]*228respondent continues to have no permanent address or sustaining income, both of which foster relapse.

We realize that withholding respondent’s license to practice law may exacerbate his economic situation and, correspondingly, reduce his chances for recovery. However, our primary obligation here is to protect the public. In furtherance of this duty, we order that respondent be indefinitely suspended from the practice of law in Ohio. Costs taxed to respondent.

Judgment accordingly.

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

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

Per Curiam.

We agree that respondent violated DR 1 — 102(A)(5) and (6), 3-101(B), 6-101(A)(3), 7-101(A)(2), and 9-102(A)(2), as found by the board. However, we cannot allow respondent’s immediate return to practice law, even under the comprehensive conditions the board has recommended.

Respondent has attempted rehabilitation on several occasions, including one time in 1990, in which he claims to have abstained from alcohol for ten months. This history manifests his propensity to relapse, and we see no convincing evidence in the record that he will not do so again.

At the time of the hearing, respondent was not under the care of a physician or counselor, he did not zealously participate in A.A. or participate at all in OLAP, and, most unfortunately, he continued to consume alcohol. With the exception of the quantity of alcohol consumed, these had also been respondent’s circumstances prior to his most recent admission to a substance abuse program. Similarly, [228]*228respondent continues to have no permanent address or sustaining income, both of which foster relapse.

We realize that withholding respondent’s license to practice law may exacerbate his economic situation and, correspondingly, reduce his chances for recovery. However, our primary obligation here is to protect the public. In furtherance of this duty, we order that respondent be indefinitely suspended from the practice of law in Ohio. Costs taxed to respondent.

Judgment accordingly.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

648 N.E.2d 1338, 72 Ohio St. 3d 224, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cincinnati-bar-assn-v-farr-ohio-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack