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

Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Immelt

562 N.E.2d 888, 55 Ohio St. 3d 17, 1990 Ohio LEXIS 1388
CourtOhio Supreme Court
DecidedNovember 7, 1990
DocketNo. 90-803
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 562 N.E.2d 888 (Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Immelt) 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. Immelt, 562 N.E.2d 888, 55 Ohio St. 3d 17, 1990 Ohio LEXIS 1388 (Ohio 1990).

Opinions

Per Curiam.

Having thoroughly reviewed the record in this case, we [18]*18concur in the board’s findings that respondent violated DR 1-102(A)(3), (4), and (5), and 9-102(B)(4). We also agree with the board’s recommendation. Therefore, we order that respondent be indefinitely suspended from the practice of law in Ohio. Respondent is further ordered to show complete restitution and adequate recovery upon any application he makes for readmission to the Ohio Bar. Costs taxed to respondent.

Judgment accordingly.

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

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

Related

McKay v. City of New York
32 F. Supp. 3d 499 (S.D. New York, 2014)
State v. Stevens, Unpublished Decision (9-28-2001)
Ohio Court of Appeals, 2001
In Re the Disciplinary Proceeding Against Immelt
831 P.2d 736 (Washington Supreme Court, 1992)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
562 N.E.2d 888, 55 Ohio St. 3d 17, 1990 Ohio LEXIS 1388, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/office-of-disciplinary-counsel-v-immelt-ohio-1990.