Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Cordova

615 N.E.2d 1035, 67 Ohio St. 3d 25
Ohio Supreme Court·Decided August 4, 1993·No. No. 92-2192·Published·Cited by 2 cases

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

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

615 N.E.2d 1035 (Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Cordova) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

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)