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

Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Hart

639 N.E.2d 48, 70 Ohio St. 3d 374
CourtOhio Supreme Court
DecidedSeptember 28, 1994
DocketNo. 94-967
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 639 N.E.2d 48 (Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Hart) 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. Hart, 639 N.E.2d 48, 70 Ohio St. 3d 374 (Ohio 1994).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

We concur in the findings and recommendation of the board. Respondent’s diligent compliance with conditions of his probation and his pharmacy license suspension, his negative drug test results, the fact that his misconduct did not relate to his practice of law, as well as the other mitigating evidence, indicates that a stay is appropriate. Respondent is hereby suspended from the practice of law for six months, but the suspension is stayed so long as no subsequent disciplinary complaints are filed against respondent within the six-month period. Costs taxed to respondent.

Judgment accordingly.

Moyer, C.J., A.W. Sweeney, Douglas, Wright, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney and Pfeifer, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Statewide Grievance Committee v. Small, No. Cv 94-0541637s (Mar. 18, 1999)
1999 Conn. Super. Ct. 3535 (Connecticut Superior Court, 1999)
Disciplinary Counsel v. Hart
1994 Ohio 78 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1994)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
639 N.E.2d 48, 70 Ohio St. 3d 374, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/office-of-disciplinary-counsel-v-hart-ohio-1994.