Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Giegel

564 N.E.2d 84, 56 Ohio St. 3d 58, 1990 Ohio LEXIS 1719
Ohio Supreme Court·Decided December 12, 1990·No. No. 90-1125·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

We concur with the board’s findings and recommendations. Respondent is hereby indefinitely suspended from the practice of law. Moreover, the court admonishes respondent that in any application for reinstatement, the court will look for proof that respondent has resolved his alcohol abuse problems and made restitution to persons injured by his misconduct. Costs taxed to respondent.

Judgment accordingly.

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

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

Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Giegel, 564 N.E.2d 84, 56 Ohio St. 3d 58, 1990 Ohio LEXIS 1719 (Ohio 1990).

564 N.E.2d 84 (Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Giegel) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Ball
618 N.E.2d 159 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1993)
Disciplinary Counsel v. Ball
1993 Ohio 6 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1993)