Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Cargo

641 N.E.2d 1374, 71 Ohio St. 3d 87
Ohio Supreme Court·Decided December 7, 1994·No. No. 94-1843·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Having thoroughly reviewed the record, we agree with the board’s finding of misconduct and its recommendation. Accordingly, respondent is hereby suspended from the practice of law in Ohio for six months, with the suspension to be stayed and respondent to be placed on probation upon the conditions that during this period: the performance of his duties be supervised by an attorney at his new firm, Reminger & Reminger; a monitoring attorney be appointed under Gov.Bar R. V(9)(B); and respondent reimburse his former firm in Mansfield the $300 paid to Kleshinski. Costs taxed to respondent.

Judgment accordingly.

Moyer, C.J., A.W. Sweeney, Douglas, Wright, Resnick and Pfeifer, JJ., concur. F.E. Sweeney, J., dissents and would suspend respondent for six months without stay.

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

Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Cargo, 641 N.E.2d 1374, 71 Ohio St. 3d 87 (Ohio 1994).

641 N.E.2d 1374 (Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Cargo) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Disciplinary Counsel v. Cargo
1994 Ohio 65 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1994)