Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Carretta

Ohio Supreme Court

Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Carretta

72 Ohio St. 3d 42

Ohio Supreme Court·Decided April 19, 1995·No. No. 94-1838·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinions

Per Curiam.

We agree that respondent violated DR 5-107(B), but we find the recommended sanction is not an adequate sanction for the nature of respondent’s [45]*45conduct. We consider relator’s recommendation — a six-month suspension — the more appropriate response to this misconduct. Respondent is, therefore, suspended from the practice of law in Ohio for a period of six months. Costs taxed to respondent.

Judgment accordingly.

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

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

Per Curiam.

We agree that respondent violated DR 5-107(B), but we find the recommended sanction is not an adequate sanction for the nature of respondent’s [45]*45conduct. We consider relator’s recommendation — a six-month suspension — the more appropriate response to this misconduct. Respondent is, therefore, suspended from the practice of law in Ohio for a period of six months. Costs taxed to respondent.

Judgment accordingly.

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

Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Carretta, 72 Ohio St. 3d 42 (Ohio 1995).

Pincite

72 Ohio St. 3d 42 (Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Carretta) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinions

Related