Cleveland Bar Ass'n v. Stanley

552 N.E.2d 201, 50 Ohio St. 3d 18, 1990 Ohio LEXIS 126
Ohio Supreme Court·Decided March 21, 1990·No. No. 89-1558·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinions

Per Curiam.

Having thoroughly reviewed the record, we agree that respondent committed the misconduct found by the board. However, we find the board’s recommendation inappropriate. Accordingly, we order that •respondent be placed on a six-month suspension, but that this sanction be suspended on the condition that he satisfactorily serve a two-year monitored probation period. Costs taxed to respondent.

Judgment accordingly.

Moyer, C.J., Sweeney, Wright and Resnick, JJ., concur. Holmes, J., dissents. Douglas and H. Brown, JJ., dissent without opinion.

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

Cleveland Bar Ass'n v. Stanley, 552 N.E.2d 201, 50 Ohio St. 3d 18, 1990 Ohio LEXIS 126 (Ohio 1990).

552 N.E.2d 201 (Cleveland Bar Ass'n v. Stanley) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Disciplinary Counsel v. Stanley
1996 Ohio 271 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1996)