Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Floyd

Ohio Supreme Court

Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Floyd

660 N.E.2d 1150, 74 Ohio St. 3d 599

Ohio Supreme Court·Decided February 28, 1996·No. No. 95-2532·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

We concur with the board’s findings, conclusions of law, and recommendation. Accordingly, respondent is suspended from the practice of law in Ohio for one year, but that suspension is held in abeyance and respondent is placed on probation for two years upon the conditions recommended by the [601] board. Restitution is to be made within ninety days from this order. Costs taxed to respondent.

Judgment accordingly.

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Wright, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney and Cook, JJ., concur. Pfeifer, J., dissents and would publicly reprimand respondent.

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

Per Curiam.

We concur with the board’s findings, conclusions of law, and recommendation. Accordingly, respondent is suspended from the practice of law in Ohio for one year, but that suspension is held in abeyance and respondent is placed on probation for two years upon the conditions recommended by the [601] board. Restitution is to be made within ninety days from this order. Costs taxed to respondent.

Judgment accordingly.

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Wright, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney and Cook, JJ., concur. Pfeifer, J., dissents and would publicly reprimand respondent.

Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Floyd, 660 N.E.2d 1150, 74 Ohio St. 3d 599 (Ohio 1996).

Pincite

660 N.E.2d 1150 (Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Floyd) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related