Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Brown

Ohio Supreme Court

Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Brown

671 N.E.2d 232, 77 Ohio St. 3d 91

Ohio Supreme Court·Decided November 13, 1996·No. No. 96-1431·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

We adopt the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the board. The record indicates that respondent requires rehabilitation. This court’s duty to the public requires that respondent affirmatively demonstrate his rehabilitation before we allow him to resume his place on the rolls of those permitted to practice law in Ohio. We have thus far suspended respondent from the practice of law for an interim period. We now hereby suspend respondent from the practice of law for an indefinite period. Costs taxed to the respondent.

Judgment accordingly.

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

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

Per Curiam.

We adopt the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the board. The record indicates that respondent requires rehabilitation. This court’s duty to the public requires that respondent affirmatively demonstrate his rehabilitation before we allow him to resume his place on the rolls of those permitted to practice law in Ohio. We have thus far suspended respondent from the practice of law for an interim period. We now hereby suspend respondent from the practice of law for an indefinite period. Costs taxed to the respondent.

Judgment accordingly.

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

Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Brown, 671 N.E.2d 232, 77 Ohio St. 3d 91 (Ohio 1996).

Pincite

671 N.E.2d 232 (Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Brown) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related