Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Bancsi

Ohio Supreme Court

Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Bancsi

683 N.E.2d 1072, 79 Ohio St. 3d 392

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedSeptember 24, 1997

DocketNo. 97-436

StatusPublished

Cited by11 cases

This text of 683 N.E.2d 1072 (Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Bancsi) 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. Bancsi, 683 N.E.2d 1072, 79 Ohio St. 3d 392 (Ohio 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

We adopt the findings and conclusions of the board. An attorney who continues to practice law while his license is under suspension violates DR 3-101(B). Akron Bar Assn. v. Thorpe (1988), 40 Ohio St.3d 174, 532 N.E.2d 752. As we said in Disciplinary Counsel v. Koury (1997), 77 Ohio St.3d 433, 436, 674 N.E.2d 1371, 1373, “The normal penalty for continuing to practice law while under suspension is disbarment.”

However, in view of the specific facts of this case, including respondent’s prompt attempt to cure the deficiency with respect to continuing legal.education which resulted in his suspension, his immediate payment of the outstanding fines, the short duration of the suspension, and the recommendation of the panel, we order that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for one year with six months of the suspension stayed. Costs taxed to respondent.

Judgment accordingly.

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.

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