Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Immelt
562 N.E.2d 888, 55 Ohio St. 3d 17, 1990 Ohio LEXIS 1388
Opinions
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.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Immelt, 562 N.E.2d 888, 55 Ohio St. 3d 17, 1990 Ohio LEXIS 1388 (Ohio 1990).
562 N.E.2d 888 (Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Immelt) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
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State v. Stevens, Unpublished Decision (9-28-2001)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)