Cleveland Bar Ass'n v. Rossi

690 N.E.2d 501, 81 Ohio St. 3d 195
Ohio Supreme Court·Decided March 11, 1998·No. No. 97-1309·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinions

Per Curiam.

We adopt the findings of fact and the conclusions of the board. However, we believe that the facts of this case warrant the sanction of a public reprimand. Respondent is so reprimanded. Costs taxed to respondent.

Judgment accordingly.

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

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

Cleveland Bar Ass'n v. Rossi, 690 N.E.2d 501, 81 Ohio St. 3d 195 (Ohio 1998).

690 N.E.2d 501 (Cleveland Bar Ass'n v. Rossi) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Disciplinary Counsel v. Sartini
114 Ohio St. 3d 205 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2007)
Toledo Bar Assn. v. Mansour-Ismail
1999 Ohio 78 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1999)
Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Rossi
1998 Ohio 634 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1998)