Cuyahoga County Bar Ass'n v. Siewert

532 N.E.2d 751, 40 Ohio St. 3d 172, 1988 Ohio LEXIS 443
Ohio Supreme Court·Decided December 30, 1988·No. No. D.D. 88-11·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Having thoroughly reviewed the record, this court concurs that respondent violated DR 6-101 (A)(3), 7-101(A)(l), 7401(A)(2), 7401(A)(3), and Gov. Bar R. V(5). However, in light of respondent’s admitted alcoholism and his stated desire to obtain treatment for it, we believe the board’s recommendation to be in[174] appropriate under the circumstances. Accordingly, we order that respondent be suspended from the practice of law in Ohio for two years, but that eighteen months of this penalty be suspended so that, if a monitor of his progress recommends same, respondent may be readmitted after six months. However, even if respondent is successful in being readmitted after this initial six-month period, his performance must still be monitored for the remainder of the two-year suspension. Costs taxed to respondent.

Judgment accordingly.

Moyer, C.J., Sweeney, Locher, Holmes, Douglas, Wright and H. Brown, JJ., concur.

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

Cuyahoga County Bar Ass'n v. Siewert, 532 N.E.2d 751, 40 Ohio St. 3d 172, 1988 Ohio LEXIS 443 (Ohio 1988).

532 N.E.2d 751 (Cuyahoga County Bar Ass'n v. Siewert) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Disciplinary Counsel v. Siewert
2011 Ohio 5935 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2011)
Cuyahoga County Bar Ass'n v. Siewert
552 N.E.2d 630 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1990)