Disciplinary Counsel v. Watson

2005 Ohio 2424, 105 Ohio St. 3d 1553
Ohio Supreme Court·Decided May 20, 2005·No. 2005-0398·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

This matter is pending before the court upon the filing on February 28, 2005, of the report and recommendation of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline regarding respondent, Michael Troy Watson. On April 18, 2005, respondent filed a motion to show cause why E. Yvonne [1554]*1554Harris should not be held in contempt for failure to appear at an October 26, 2004, hearing. Ms. Harris filed a response on April 28, 2005. On April 18, 2005, respondent also filed a motion to show cause why Bruce Hodge should not be found in contempt for failure to appear at an October 26, 2004, hearing. Mr. Hodge did not file a response. Upon consideration thereof,

IT IS ORDERED by the court that the motions of respondent be, and hereby are, denied.

Resnick, J., dissents.

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

Disciplinary Counsel v. Watson, 2005 Ohio 2424, 105 Ohio St. 3d 1553 (Ohio 2005).

2005 Ohio 2424 (Disciplinary Counsel v. Watson) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Disciplinary Counsel v. Hunter
106 Ohio St. 3d 418 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2005)
S & P Lebos, Inc. v. Ohio Liquor Control Commission
840 N.E.2d 1089 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2005)