Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Caywood

660 N.E.2d 1148, 74 Ohio St. 3d 596
Ohio Supreme Court·Decided February 28, 1996·No. No. 95-2556·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

We concur in the board’s findings of fact and conclusions of law. However, respondent’s repeated violations of the Disciplinary Rules over a relatively short period of time merit a more severe penalty than that recommended by the board. Respondent’s most recent violations took place approximately one month after his suspension was announced by this court in Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Caywood, 71 Ohio St.3d 164, 642 N.E.2d 625. In defiance of our ordered suspension, respondent continued to practice law by appearing in court as an attorney, even though he knew that it was clearly improper for him to do so. In light of respondent’s current violations and history of professional misconduct, respondent is hereby ordered permanently disbarred from the practice of law in Ohio. Costs taxed to respondent.

Judgment accordingly.

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

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

Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Caywood, 660 N.E.2d 1148, 74 Ohio St. 3d 596 (Ohio 1996).

660 N.E.2d 1148 (Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Caywood) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Cleveland Metropolitan Bar Association v. Pryatel
2016 Ohio 865 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2016)
Cincinnati Bar Ass'n v. Rothermel
860 N.E.2d 754 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2007)
Disciplinary Counsel v. Henderson
844 N.E.2d 348 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2006)
Disciplinary Counsel v. Caywood
1996 Ohio 294 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1996)