Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Baker

Ohio Supreme Court

Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Baker

603 N.E.2d 990, 65 Ohio St. 3d 302, 1992 Ohio LEXIS 3157

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedDecember 14, 1992

DocketNo. 92-1348

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 603 N.E.2d 990 (Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Baker) 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

Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Baker, 603 N.E.2d 990, 65 Ohio St. 3d 302, 1992 Ohio LEXIS 3157 (Ohio 1992).

Pincite

Opinions

Per Curiam.

This court concurs with the board that respondent violated DR 1-102(A)(6). We also agree that respondent willfully failed to file his 1987 tax return and that our precedent in such cases requires a one-year suspension from the practice of law. Further, the testimony offered in mitigation is insufficient to warrant a lesser sanction, particularly when the record shows that respondent’s disability ended with his return to work in 1987. According[305]*305ly, we order that respondent be suspended from the practice of law in Ohio for a period of one year. Costs taxed to respondent.

Judgment accordingly.

Moyer, C.J., Sweeney, Holmes and Wright, JJ., concur. Douglas, H. Brown and Resnick, JJ., separately dissent.

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

Per Curiam.

This court concurs with the board that respondent violated DR 1-102(A)(6). We also agree that respondent willfully failed to file his 1987 tax return and that our precedent in such cases requires a one-year suspension from the practice of law. Further, the testimony offered in mitigation is insufficient to warrant a lesser sanction, particularly when the record shows that respondent’s disability ended with his return to work in 1987. According[305]*305ly, we order that respondent be suspended from the practice of law in Ohio for a period of one year. Costs taxed to respondent.

Judgment accordingly.

Moyer, C.J., Sweeney, Holmes and Wright, JJ., concur. Douglas, H. Brown and Resnick, JJ., separately dissent.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

603 N.E.2d 990, 65 Ohio St. 3d 302, 1992 Ohio LEXIS 3157, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/office-of-disciplinary-counsel-v-baker-ohio-1992.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack