Columbus Bar Ass'n v. Baer

Ohio Supreme Court

Columbus Bar Ass'n v. Baer

591 N.E.2d 1209, 64 Ohio St. 3d 32, 1992 Ohio LEXIS 1339

Ohio Supreme Court·Decided June 17, 1992·No. No. 91-2502·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

We agree with the board’s findings and recommendation. Accordingly, we order that respondent be suspended from the practice of law in Ohio for a period of six months. Costs taxed to respondent.

Judgment accordingly.

[35]*35Moyer, C.J., Sweeney, Holmes, Douglas, Wright and Resnick, JJ., concur. H. Brown, J., dissents. Herbert R. Brown, J., dissenting. I believe that a public reprimand is the appropriate sanction.

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

Per Curiam.

We agree with the board’s findings and recommendation. Accordingly, we order that respondent be suspended from the practice of law in Ohio for a period of six months. Costs taxed to respondent.

Judgment accordingly.

[35]*35Moyer, C.J., Sweeney, Holmes, Douglas, Wright and Resnick, JJ., concur. H. Brown, J., dissents. Herbert R. Brown, J., dissenting. I believe that a public reprimand is the appropriate sanction.

Columbus Bar Ass'n v. Baer, 591 N.E.2d 1209, 64 Ohio St. 3d 32, 1992 Ohio LEXIS 1339 (Ohio 1992).

Pincite

591 N.E.2d 1209 (Columbus Bar Ass'n v. Baer) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related