Cincinnati Bar Ass'n v. Rinderknecht

679 N.E.2d 669, 79 Ohio St. 3d 30
Ohio Supreme Court·Decided June 18, 1997·No. No. 96-1993·Published·Cited by 7 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

We reject respondent’s arguments that the panel incorrectly admitted the statement of a co-conspirator and that relator did not prove the violations by clear and convincing evidence. Furthermore, we accept the findings, conclusions, and recommended sanction of the board. Accordingly, we indefinitely suspend respondent from the practice of law in Ohio and tax costs to him.

Judgment accordingly.

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

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

Cincinnati Bar Ass'n v. Rinderknecht, 679 N.E.2d 669, 79 Ohio St. 3d 30 (Ohio 1997).

679 N.E.2d 669 (Cincinnati Bar Ass'n v. Rinderknecht) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

In re Universal Building Products
486 B.R. 650 (D. Delaware, 2010)
Mississippi Bar v. Turnage
919 So. 2d 36 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 2005)
Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Haas
1998 Ohio 93 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1998)
Disciplinary Counsel v. Jackson
1998 Ohio 474 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1998)
Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Rinderknecht
1997 Ohio 309 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1997)