Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Cicero

Ohio Supreme Court

Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Cicero

678 N.E.2d 517, 78 Ohio St. 3d 351

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedMay 14, 1997

DocketNo. 96-1432

StatusPublished

Cited by14 cases

This text of 678 N.E.2d 517 (Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Cicero) 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. Cicero, 678 N.E.2d 517, 78 Ohio St. 3d 351 (Ohio 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Relator objects to the board’s report in two significant respects. Relator’s first objection is that the board erred in finding that the relator did not file an amended complaint adding a DR 1-102(A)(4) violation to count one. Relator’s next objection is that the board erred in failing to find a DR 9-101(C) violation under the facts presented at the hearings. Because of a lack of clear and convincing evidence to support either violation, we overrule both the relator’s objections.

[353]*353We adopt the findings of fact and conclusions of law of the board, but impose a more stringent sanction of a one-year suspension from the practice of law based on the gravity of respondent’s disciplinary violations. Costs taxed to respondent.

Judgment accordingly.

Moyer, C.J., Cook and Glasser, JJ., concur. Resnick, J., concurs in judgment only. Douglas, F.E. Sweeney and Pfeifer, JJ., dissent and would adopt the recommendations of the panel and the board. George M. Glasser, J., of the Sixth Appellate District, sitting for Lundberg Stratton, J.

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