Cleveland Bar Ass'n v. Kurtz

Ohio Supreme Court

Cleveland Bar Ass'n v. Kurtz

647 N.E.2d 150, 72 Ohio St. 3d 18

Ohio Supreme Court·Decided April 12, 1995·No. No. 94-2651·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

We have reviewed the stipulations and agree that respondent committed the cited misconduct. However, we consider a stay of the six-month suspension period too lenient for respondent’s violations of DR 2-106(A), 9-102(A), and 9-102(B)(3) and (4). We, therefore, order that respondent be suspended from the practice of law in Ohio for a period of six months, with this [21]*21suspension to be followed by a two-year monitored probation under the condition that he makes full restitution with interest at the judgment rate to the Tuballeses by the end of his probation. 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 have reviewed the stipulations and agree that respondent committed the cited misconduct. However, we consider a stay of the six-month suspension period too lenient for respondent’s violations of DR 2-106(A), 9-102(A), and 9-102(B)(3) and (4). We, therefore, order that respondent be suspended from the practice of law in Ohio for a period of six months, with this [21]*21suspension to be followed by a two-year monitored probation under the condition that he makes full restitution with interest at the judgment rate to the Tuballeses by the end of his probation. Costs taxed to respondent.

Judgment accordingly.

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

Cleveland Bar Ass'n v. Kurtz, 647 N.E.2d 150, 72 Ohio St. 3d 18 (Ohio 1995).

Pincite

647 N.E.2d 150 (Cleveland Bar Ass'n v. Kurtz) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related