Dayton Bar Ass'n v. O'Neal

648 N.E.2d 1344, 72 Ohio St. 3d 234
Ohio Supreme Court·Decided May 24, 1995·No. No. 94-2647·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinions

Per Curiam.

Having reviewed the record, we concur in the board’s findings that respondent violated DR 6 — 101(A)(2) and (3), and in its recommendation. Respondent is hereby suspended from the practice of law in Ohio for a period of six-months, but this sanction is suspended on the condition that he complete a two-year probation period and that, during this period, no complaints against him have been certified to the board by a probable cause panel. Costs taxed to respondent.

Judgment accordingly.

Douglas, Wright, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney and Pfeifer, JJ., concur. Moyer, C.J., and Cook, J., dissent.

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

Dayton Bar Ass'n v. O'Neal, 648 N.E.2d 1344, 72 Ohio St. 3d 234 (Ohio 1995).

648 N.E.2d 1344 (Dayton Bar Ass'n v. O'Neal) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Dayton Bar Assn. v. O'Neal
2012 Ohio 5634 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2012)