Disciplinary Counsel v. Brown

Ohio Supreme Court

Disciplinary Counsel v. Brown

940 N.E.2d 562, 127 Ohio St. 3d 1511

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedJanuary 25, 2011

Docket2008-1573

StatusPublished

This text of 940 N.E.2d 562 (Disciplinary Counsel v. Brown) 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

Disciplinary Counsel v. Brown, 940 N.E.2d 562, 127 Ohio St. 3d 1511 (Ohio 2011).

Pincite

Opinions

This cause came on for further consideration upon the filing by relator, Disciplinary Counsel, of a motion for an order to appear and show cause. Respondent was ordered to appear before this court, and he appeared on January 19, 2011.

Upon consideration thereof, it is ordered by this court that respondent, Bruce A. Brown, a.k.a. B. Andrew Brown, a.k.a. Amir Jamal Tauwab, is found in contempt for use of the terms “Esq.,” “Esquire,” “J.D.,” or “Juris Doctor” in conjunction with his name or his business name in violation of the court’s March 19, 2009 order.

It is further ordered that respondent is held in contempt of this court's order to pay a $50,000 civil penalty in this matter. Respondent is hereby ordered to submit to a debtor’s exam to be conducted by the office of the Ohio Attorney General within 45 days of the date of this order.

O’Connor, C.J., and Lundberg Stratton, O’Donnell, Lanzinger, Cupp, and McGee Brown, JJ., concur.

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

This cause came on for further consideration upon the filing by relator, Disciplinary Counsel, of a motion for an order to appear and show cause. Respondent was ordered to appear before this court, and he appeared on January 19, 2011.

Upon consideration thereof, it is ordered by this court that respondent, Bruce A. Brown, a.k.a. B. Andrew Brown, a.k.a. Amir Jamal Tauwab, is found in contempt for use of the terms “Esq.,” “Esquire,” “J.D.,” or “Juris Doctor” in conjunction with his name or his business name in violation of the court’s March 19, 2009 order.

It is further ordered that respondent is held in contempt of this court's order to pay a $50,000 civil penalty in this matter. Respondent is hereby ordered to submit to a debtor’s exam to be conducted by the office of the Ohio Attorney General within 45 days of the date of this order.

O’Connor, C.J., and Lundberg Stratton, O’Donnell, Lanzinger, Cupp, and McGee Brown, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

940 N.E.2d 562, 127 Ohio St. 3d 1511, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/disciplinary-counsel-v-brown-ohio-2011.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack