Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Freeman

Ohio Supreme Court

Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Freeman

554 N.E.2d 1320, 51 Ohio St. 3d 98, 1990 Ohio LEXIS 225

Ohio Supreme Court·Decided May 23, 1990·No. No. D.D. 88-30·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Having thoroughly reviewed this record, we agree that respondent violated DR 6-101(A)(3) and 1-102(A)(6). We also agree with the board’s recommendation. Accordingly, respondent is hereby suspended from the practice of law in Ohio for six months, but this sanction is suspended on the condition that he satisfactorily completes a two-year monitored probation period and complies with the five requirements enumerated in the panel’s opinion. Costs taxed to respondent.

Judgment accordingly.

Moyer, C.J., Sweeney, Holmes, Douglas, Wright, H. Brown and Re snick, JJ., concur.

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

Per Curiam.

Having thoroughly reviewed this record, we agree that respondent violated DR 6-101(A)(3) and 1-102(A)(6). We also agree with the board’s recommendation. Accordingly, respondent is hereby suspended from the practice of law in Ohio for six months, but this sanction is suspended on the condition that he satisfactorily completes a two-year monitored probation period and complies with the five requirements enumerated in the panel’s opinion. Costs taxed to respondent.

Judgment accordingly.

Moyer, C.J., Sweeney, Holmes, Douglas, Wright, H. Brown and Re snick, JJ., concur.

Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Freeman, 554 N.E.2d 1320, 51 Ohio St. 3d 98, 1990 Ohio LEXIS 225 (Ohio 1990).

Pincite

554 N.E.2d 1320 (Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Freeman) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related