Cuyahoga County Bar Ass'n v. Bogart

711 N.E.2d 659, 86 Ohio St. 3d 38
CourtOhio Supreme Court
DecidedJune 23, 1999
DocketNo. 99-388
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 711 N.E.2d 659 (Cuyahoga County Bar Ass'n v. Bogart) 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
Cuyahoga County Bar Ass'n v. Bogart, 711 N.E.2d 659, 86 Ohio St. 3d 38 (Ohio 1999).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

We adopt the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the board. A stayed suspension with the conditions recommended by the board is an appropriate sanction for respondent’s misconduct and will assure that he receives the assistance necessary to treat his alcohol addiction and related dependency problems. See, e.g., Disciplinary Counsel v. Maxwell (1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 7, 697 N.E.2d 597, and Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Baas (1997), 79 Ohio St.3d 293, 681 N.E.2d 421, where we imposed similar sanctions for misconduct that included violations of DR 1-102(A)(6) and evidence of alcohol abuse. Accordingly, respondent is hereby suspended from the practice of law in Ohio for eighteen months, [40]*40with the entire suspension stayed and respondent placed on probation under the conditions established by the board. Costs taxed to respondent.

Judgment accordingly.

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

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

Related

Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Bogart
1999 Ohio 347 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1999)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
711 N.E.2d 659, 86 Ohio St. 3d 38, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cuyahoga-county-bar-assn-v-bogart-ohio-1999.