Home/Ohio Supreme Court/Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Furtado

Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Furtado

641 N.E.2d 184, 71 Ohio St. 3d 20, 1994 Ohio LEXIS 2587
CourtOhio Supreme Court
DecidedNovember 23, 1994
DocketNo. 94-536
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 641 N.E.2d 184 (Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Furtado) 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. Furtado, 641 N.E.2d 184, 71 Ohio St. 3d 20, 1994 Ohio LEXIS 2587 (Ohio 1994).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

We concur in the findings and recommendations of the board. Respondent is hereby suspended from the practice of law in Ohio for two years with credit given for time served. As a condition to reinstatement, respondent must complete her federal probation. Costs taxed to respondent.

Judgment accordingly.

Moyer, C.J., A.W. Sweeney, Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney and Pfeifer, JJ., concur. Wright, J., would also condition respondent’s reinstatement upon her full payment of restitution.

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

Related

Disciplinary Counsel v. Furtado.
2017 Ohio 9109 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2017)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
641 N.E.2d 184, 71 Ohio St. 3d 20, 1994 Ohio LEXIS 2587, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/office-of-disciplinary-counsel-v-furtado-ohio-1994.