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

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedJune 17, 1992

DocketNo. 91-2502

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 591 N.E.2d 1209 (Columbus Bar Ass'n v. Baer) 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

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

Pincite

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

591 N.E.2d 1209, 64 Ohio St. 3d 32, 1992 Ohio LEXIS 1339, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/columbus-bar-assn-v-baer-ohio-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack