Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Cordova

615 N.E.2d 1035, 67 Ohio St. 3d 25
CourtOhio Supreme Court
DecidedAugust 4, 1993
DocketNo. 92-2192
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 615 N.E.2d 1035 (Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Cordova) 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. Cordova, 615 N.E.2d 1035, 67 Ohio St. 3d 25 (Ohio 1993).

Opinions

Per Curiam.

We concur in the findings of misconduct by the board. However, we differ with the board’s recommendation. We order instead that respondent be publicly reprimanded. Costs taxed to respondent.

Judgment accordingly.

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

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

Related

Lake Cty. Bar Assn. v. Speros
1995 Ohio 205 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1995)
Lake County Bar Ass'n v. Speros
652 N.E.2d 681 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1995)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
615 N.E.2d 1035, 67 Ohio St. 3d 25, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/office-of-disciplinary-counsel-v-cordova-ohio-1993.