Geauga County Bar Ass'n v. Hall

Ohio Supreme Court

Geauga County Bar Ass'n v. Hall

528 N.E.2d 192, 38 Ohio St. 3d 342, 1988 Ohio LEXIS 295

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedSeptember 7, 1988

DocketNo. D.D. 88-1

StatusPublished

This text of 528 N.E.2d 192 (Geauga County Bar Ass'n v. Hall) 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

Geauga County Bar Ass'n v. Hall, 528 N.E.2d 192, 38 Ohio St. 3d 342, 1988 Ohio LEXIS 295 (Ohio 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This court’s review of the record also supports that respondent’s conduct violated DR 1-102(A)(3), 1-102(A)(4), 1-102(A)(6), 9-102(B)(3), and 9-102(B)(4). In the past, we have responded to misconduct like respondent’s by suspending the violator indefinitely from the practice of law in Ohio. Disciplinary Counsel v. Heck (1984), 15 Ohio St. 3d 33, 15 OBR 133, 472 N.E. 2d 694; Bar Assn. of Greater Cleveland v. Schnittger (1983), 3 Ohio St. 3d 26, 3 OBR 497, 445 N.E. 2d 662. As a result, we must reject the sanction recommended by the board. Respondent is hereby ordered indefinitely suspended from the practice of law in Ohio. Costs taxed to respondent.

Judgment accordingly.

Moyer, C.J., Sweeney, Holmes, Douglas, Wright and H. Brown, JJ., concur. Locher, J., not participating.

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

Per Curiam.

This court’s review of the record also supports that respondent’s conduct violated DR 1-102(A)(3), 1-102(A)(4), 1-102(A)(6), 9-102(B)(3), and 9-102(B)(4). In the past, we have responded to misconduct like respondent’s by suspending the violator indefinitely from the practice of law in Ohio. Disciplinary Counsel v. Heck (1984), 15 Ohio St. 3d 33, 15 OBR 133, 472 N.E. 2d 694; Bar Assn. of Greater Cleveland v. Schnittger (1983), 3 Ohio St. 3d 26, 3 OBR 497, 445 N.E. 2d 662. As a result, we must reject the sanction recommended by the board. Respondent is hereby ordered indefinitely suspended from the practice of law in Ohio. Costs taxed to respondent.

Judgment accordingly.

Moyer, C.J., Sweeney, Holmes, Douglas, Wright and H. Brown, JJ., concur. Locher, J., not participating.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

528 N.E.2d 192, 38 Ohio St. 3d 342, 1988 Ohio LEXIS 295, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/geauga-county-bar-assn-v-hall-ohio-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack