Home/Ohio Supreme Court/Cincinnati Bar Ass'n v. Grote

Cincinnati Bar Ass'n v. Grote

553 N.E.2d 657, 50 Ohio St. 3d 156, 1990 Ohio LEXIS 170
CourtOhio Supreme Court
DecidedApril 18, 1990
DocketNo. 89-2164
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 553 N.E.2d 657 (Cincinnati Bar Ass'n v. Grote) 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. Grote, 553 N.E.2d 657, 50 Ohio St. 3d 156, 1990 Ohio LEXIS 170 (Ohio 1990).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

We agree that respondent violated DR. 1-102(A)(4) and 6-101(A)(3). However, we find respondent’s misconduct deserving of a more severe sanction than that recommended by the board. Accordingly, respondent is hereby ordered suspended from the practice of law in Ohio for one year. Costs taxed to respondent.

Judgment accordingly.

Moyer, C.J., Sweeney, Holmes, Douglas, Wright, H. Brown and Resnick, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Grote
2010 Ohio 4833 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2010)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
553 N.E.2d 657, 50 Ohio St. 3d 156, 1990 Ohio LEXIS 170, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cincinnati-bar-assn-v-grote-ohio-1990.