Disciplinary Counsel v. Connaughton

Ohio Supreme Court

Disciplinary Counsel v. Connaughton

690 N.E.2d 1284, 81 Ohio St. 3d 1463, 1998 Ohio LEXIS 984

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedMarch 5, 1998

Docket96-431

StatusPublished

This text of 690 N.E.2d 1284 (Disciplinary Counsel v. Connaughton) 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. Connaughton, 690 N.E.2d 1284, 81 Ohio St. 3d 1463, 1998 Ohio LEXIS 984 (Ohio 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

This cause came on for further consideration upon the filing on October 13, 1997, by the Clients’ Security Fund of a motion for order to show cause. On December 17, 1997, this court granted the motion and ordered respondent to respond to the order within twenty days. Respondent did not file a response to the order to show cause. Upon consideration thereof,

IT IS ORDERED by this court, sua sponte, that Daniel E. Connaughton, Attorney Registration No. 0033821, last known address in Hamilton, Ohio, is found in contempt for failure to comply with this court’s order of June 26, 1996. It is further ordered that this cause be referred to the Office of the Attorney General for collection.

Douglas, J., would find respondent in contempt.

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 on October 13, 1997, by the Clients’ Security Fund of a motion for order to show cause. On December 17, 1997, this court granted the motion and ordered respondent to respond to the order within twenty days. Respondent did not file a response to the order to show cause. Upon consideration thereof,

IT IS ORDERED by this court, sua sponte, that Daniel E. Connaughton, Attorney Registration No. 0033821, last known address in Hamilton, Ohio, is found in contempt for failure to comply with this court’s order of June 26, 1996. It is further ordered that this cause be referred to the Office of the Attorney General for collection.

Douglas, J., would find respondent in contempt.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

690 N.E.2d 1284, 81 Ohio St. 3d 1463, 1998 Ohio LEXIS 984, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/disciplinary-counsel-v-connaughton-ohio-1998.