Disciplinary Counsel v. Sorkin

Ohio Supreme Court

Disciplinary Counsel v. Sorkin

670 N.E.2d 1361, 77 Ohio St. 3d 1425, 1996 Ohio LEXIS 2052

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedOctober 18, 1996

Docket96-1838

StatusPublished

This text of 670 N.E.2d 1361 (Disciplinary Counsel v. Sorkin) 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. Sorkin, 670 N.E.2d 1361, 77 Ohio St. 3d 1425, 1996 Ohio LEXIS 2052 (Ohio 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

On August 5, 1996, pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(11)(F)(1), relator, Disciplinary Counsel, filed a certified copy of the Report and Recommendation of the Healing Board of the Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission, the Report and Recommendation of the Review Board of the Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission, the Supreme Court of Illinois Order and Mandate entered on May 24, 1994, and the Supreme Court of Illinois Mandate entered on September 27, 1994, in which respondent, Samuel Maurice Sorkin of Deerfield, Illinois, Attorney Registration No. 0021027, was suspended from the practice of law for a period of one year. Upon consideration thereof,

IT IS ORDERED by this court that this cause be, and is, hereby, dismissed as moot.

Moyer, C.J., F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer and Stratton, JJ., concur. Douglas, Resnick and Cook, JJ., dissent and would order a one-year suspension.

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

On August 5, 1996, pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(11)(F)(1), relator, Disciplinary Counsel, filed a certified copy of the Report and Recommendation of the Healing Board of the Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission, the Report and Recommendation of the Review Board of the Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission, the Supreme Court of Illinois Order and Mandate entered on May 24, 1994, and the Supreme Court of Illinois Mandate entered on September 27, 1994, in which respondent, Samuel Maurice Sorkin of Deerfield, Illinois, Attorney Registration No. 0021027, was suspended from the practice of law for a period of one year. Upon consideration thereof,

IT IS ORDERED by this court that this cause be, and is, hereby, dismissed as moot.

Moyer, C.J., F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer and Stratton, JJ., concur. Douglas, Resnick and Cook, JJ., dissent and would order a one-year suspension.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

670 N.E.2d 1361, 77 Ohio St. 3d 1425, 1996 Ohio LEXIS 2052, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/disciplinary-counsel-v-sorkin-ohio-1996.