Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Brown

660 N.E.2d 1147, 74 Ohio St. 3d 594
Ohio Supreme Court·Decided February 28, 1996·No. No. 95-2124·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

We concur in the findings of misconduct and recommendation of the board. Respondent, Perry Lowell Brown, is hereby indefinitely suspended from the practice of law in Ohio, with any petition for reinstatement conditioned upon complete restitution to the Eaton National Bank and Trust Co. and reimbursement to respondent’s grandparents for all monies borrowed to make restitution. Costs taxed to respondent.

Judgment accordingly.

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Wright and F.E. Sweeney, JJ., concur. Resnick, Pfeifer and Cook, JJ., dissent and would disbar.

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

Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Brown, 660 N.E.2d 1147, 74 Ohio St. 3d 594 (Ohio 1996).

660 N.E.2d 1147 (Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Brown) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Disciplinary Counsel v. Squire
2011 Ohio 5578 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2011)
Disciplinary Counsel v. Brown
1996 Ohio 123 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1996)