Disciplinary Counsel v. Gross

Ohio Supreme Court

Disciplinary Counsel v. Gross

463 N.E.2d 382, 11 Ohio St. 3d 48, 11 Ohio B. 195, 1984 Ohio LEXIS 1101

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedMay 23, 1984

DocketD.D. No. 83-44

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 463 N.E.2d 382 (Disciplinary Counsel v. Gross) 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. Gross, 463 N.E.2d 382, 11 Ohio St. 3d 48, 11 Ohio B. 195, 1984 Ohio LEXIS 1101 (Ohio 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Upon a review of the record, we find that respondent has violated DR 1-102(A)(6) as to both counts. Further, after ¿n analysis of the facts presented, particularly those that would show that respondent is suffering from a serious alcohol/drug problem and is not capable of meeting his personal responsibilities, much less capable- of handling legal matters entrusted to him, we conclude that a period of rehabilitation is required for this respondent to be able to present himself capable of practicing the profession of law.

[50]*50Therefore, we adopt the recommendation of the board of commissioners and agree that a stronger sanction than public reprimand is needed.

It is the judgment of this court that respondent, Bernard Gross, be indefinitely suspended from the practice of law.

Judgment accordingly.

Celebrezze, C.J., W. Brown, Sweeney, Locher, Holmes, C. Brown and J. P. Celebrezze, JJ., concur.

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

Per Curiam.

Upon a review of the record, we find that respondent has violated DR 1-102(A)(6) as to both counts. Further, after ¿n analysis of the facts presented, particularly those that would show that respondent is suffering from a serious alcohol/drug problem and is not capable of meeting his personal responsibilities, much less capable- of handling legal matters entrusted to him, we conclude that a period of rehabilitation is required for this respondent to be able to present himself capable of practicing the profession of law.

[50]*50Therefore, we adopt the recommendation of the board of commissioners and agree that a stronger sanction than public reprimand is needed.

It is the judgment of this court that respondent, Bernard Gross, be indefinitely suspended from the practice of law.

Judgment accordingly.

Celebrezze, C.J., W. Brown, Sweeney, Locher, Holmes, C. Brown and J. P. Celebrezze, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

463 N.E.2d 382, 11 Ohio St. 3d 48, 11 Ohio B. 195, 1984 Ohio LEXIS 1101, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/disciplinary-counsel-v-gross-ohio-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack