Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Hart

Ohio Supreme Court

Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Hart

639 N.E.2d 48, 70 Ohio St. 3d 374

Ohio Supreme Court·Decided September 28, 1994·No. No. 94-967·Published·Cited by 2 cases

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

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.

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

Pincite

639 N.E.2d 48 (Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Hart) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related