Columbus Bar Ass'n v. Osipow

626 N.E.2d 935, 68 Ohio St. 3d 338
Ohio Supreme Court·Decided February 23, 1994·No. No. 93-1741·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

We agree with the board’s findings and conclusions. However, respondent’s repeated instances of fraud and deceit upon his clients and his [340] employer, for his own personal benefit, warrant a more severe punishment than a one-year suspension. Accordingly, we order that respondent be suspended indefinitely from the practice of law in Ohio. Costs taxed to respondent.

Judgment accordingly.

Moyer, C.J., A.W. Sweeney, Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney and Pfeifer, JJ., concur. Wright, J., dissents, adopts the recommendation of the board, and would suspend respondent from the practice of law for one year.

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

Columbus Bar Ass'n v. Osipow, 626 N.E.2d 935, 68 Ohio St. 3d 338 (Ohio 1994).

626 N.E.2d 935 (Columbus Bar Ass'n v. Osipow) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Disciplinary Counsel v. Kraemer
2010 Ohio 3300 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2010)
Akron Bar Assn. v. Smithern
2010 Ohio 652 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2010)
Disciplinary Counsel v. Brenner
2009 Ohio 3602 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2009)