Cincinnati Bar Ass'n v. Nienaber

628 N.E.2d 1340, 68 Ohio St. 3d 459
Ohio Supreme Court·Decided March 23, 1994·No. No. 93-2521·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

We adopt the board’s findings of fact and conclusions of law. We do not, however, agree with the recommended sanction. In the case before us, respondent certified that the expenses enumerated in his travel voucher were incurred “in the service of the County and include[d] only such expenses as were necessary in performing that service. * * * ” (Emphasis added.) In reality, however, respondent sought reimbursement from public funds of certain expenditures wholly unrelated to the defense of his client.

Finding a more severe sanction to be warranted, we hereby suspend respondent from the practice of law in Ohio for six months.

Costs taxed to respondent.

Judgment accordingly.

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

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

Cincinnati Bar Ass'n v. Nienaber, 628 N.E.2d 1340, 68 Ohio St. 3d 459 (Ohio 1994).

628 N.E.2d 1340 (Cincinnati Bar Ass'n v. Nienaber) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Disciplinary Counsel v. Holland
106 Ohio St. 3d 372 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2005)
Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Nienaber
1997 Ohio 314 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1997)
In re Nienaber
667 N.E.2d 751 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1996)