Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Boykin

694 N.E.2d 899, 82 Ohio St. 3d 100
Ohio Supreme Court·Decided June 10, 1998·No. No. 97-2725·Published·Cited by 8 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

We adopt the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the board. We also note that in August 1994, we suspended respondent for eighteen [102] months, but stayed the suspension on the condition, among others, that he spend the entire time on probation under the guidance of a monitor. Disciplinary Counsel v. Boykin (1994), 70 Ohio St.3d 75, 637 N.E.2d 296.

Respondent is hereby indefinitely suspended from the practice of law in Ohio. 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

Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Boykin, 694 N.E.2d 899, 82 Ohio St. 3d 100 (Ohio 1998).

694 N.E.2d 899 (Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Boykin) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Toledo Bar Assn. v. Farah
2013 Ohio 3680 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2013)
Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Verbiski
1999 Ohio 244 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1999)
Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Curry
1999 Ohio 275 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1999)
Cuyahoga County Bar Ass'n v. Curry
708 N.E.2d 998 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1999)
Cleveland Bar Ass'n. v. Rollins
704 N.E.2d 1210 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1999)
Cincinnati Bar Ass'n v. Roemer
704 N.E.2d 237 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1999)
Disciplinary Counsel v. Boykin
1998 Ohio 581 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1998)