Cincinnati Bar Ass'n v. Rinderknecht

Ohio Supreme Court

Cincinnati Bar Ass'n v. Rinderknecht

679 N.E.2d 669, 79 Ohio St. 3d 30

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedJune 18, 1997

DocketNo. 96-1993

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

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

Pincite

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

679 N.E.2d 669, 79 Ohio St. 3d 30, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cincinnati-bar-assn-v-rinderknecht-ohio-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack