Cuyahoga County Bar Ass'n v. Siewert

Ohio Supreme Court

Cuyahoga County Bar Ass'n v. Siewert

532 N.E.2d 751, 40 Ohio St. 3d 172, 1988 Ohio LEXIS 443

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedDecember 30, 1988

DocketNo. D.D. 88-11

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

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

Pincite

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]*174appropriate 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

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]*174appropriate 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

532 N.E.2d 751, 40 Ohio St. 3d 172, 1988 Ohio LEXIS 443, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cuyahoga-county-bar-assn-v-siewert-ohio-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack