Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Cochrane

642 N.E.2d 343, 71 Ohio St. 3d 97
CourtOhio Supreme Court
DecidedDecember 7, 1994
DocketNo. 94-1763
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 642 N.E.2d 343 (Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Cochrane) 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. Cochrane, 642 N.E.2d 343, 71 Ohio St. 3d 97 (Ohio 1994).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Respondent has failed to show cause why he should not receive discipline comparable to that imposed by the Supreme Court of Nevada. Accordingly, we hereby publicly reprimand respondent. Costs taxed to respondent.

Judgment accordingly.

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

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

Related

Disciplinary Counsel v. Ross
1998 Ohio 442 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1998)
Disciplinary Counsel v. Cochrane
1994 Ohio 10 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1994)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
642 N.E.2d 343, 71 Ohio St. 3d 97, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/office-of-disciplinary-counsel-v-cochrane-ohio-1994.