Dayton Bar Ass'n v. Rogers

Ohio Supreme Court

Dayton Bar Ass'n v. Rogers

643 N.E.2d 539, 71 Ohio St. 3d 283

Ohio Supreme Court·Decided December 21, 1994·No. No. 94-1815·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Having thoroughly reviewed the record, we agree with the board’s findings of misconduct and its recommendation. Richard H. Rogers is [285]*285publicly reprimanded for having violated DR 1-102(A)(3) and (4). Costs taxed to respondent.

Judgment accordingly.

Moyer, C.J., A.W. Sweeney, Douglas, Wright, Resnick and F.E. Sweeney, JJ., concur. Pfeifer, J., dissents and would dismiss the cause.

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

Per Curiam.

Having thoroughly reviewed the record, we agree with the board’s findings of misconduct and its recommendation. Richard H. Rogers is [285]*285publicly reprimanded for having violated DR 1-102(A)(3) and (4). Costs taxed to respondent.

Judgment accordingly.

Moyer, C.J., A.W. Sweeney, Douglas, Wright, Resnick and F.E. Sweeney, JJ., concur. Pfeifer, J., dissents and would dismiss the cause.

Dayton Bar Ass'n v. Rogers, 643 N.E.2d 539, 71 Ohio St. 3d 283 (Ohio 1994).

Pincite

643 N.E.2d 539 (Dayton Bar Ass'n v. Rogers) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related