Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Caywood

Ohio Supreme Court

Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Caywood

660 N.E.2d 1148, 74 Ohio St. 3d 596

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedFebruary 28, 1996

DocketNo. 95-2556

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 660 N.E.2d 1148 (Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Caywood) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

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

Pincite

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

660 N.E.2d 1148, 74 Ohio St. 3d 596, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/office-of-disciplinary-counsel-v-caywood-ohio-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack