Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Jackson

Ohio Supreme Court

Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Jackson

612 N.E.2d 1225, 66 Ohio St. 3d 338, 1993 Ohio LEXIS 1131

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedJune 9, 1993

DocketNo. 93-215

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 612 N.E.2d 1225 (Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Jackson) 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. Jackson, 612 N.E.2d 1225, 66 Ohio St. 3d 338, 1993 Ohio LEXIS 1131 (Ohio 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Respondent has failed to show why he should not receive discipline comparable to that imposed by the Supreme Court of Hawaii. The findings approved by the Supreme Court of Hawaii clearly demonstrate respondent’s personal responsibility for extended neglect of his clients as well as his other disciplinary violations. Accordingly, we hereby suspend respondent from the practice of law in Ohio for the duration of his Hawaii suspension. However, before respondent will be reinstated to the practice of law in Ohio, he must present evidence that he has made the restitution ordered by the Supreme Court of Hawaii. 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.

Respondent has failed to show why he should not receive discipline comparable to that imposed by the Supreme Court of Hawaii. The findings approved by the Supreme Court of Hawaii clearly demonstrate respondent’s personal responsibility for extended neglect of his clients as well as his other disciplinary violations. Accordingly, we hereby suspend respondent from the practice of law in Ohio for the duration of his Hawaii suspension. However, before respondent will be reinstated to the practice of law in Ohio, he must present evidence that he has made the restitution ordered by the Supreme Court of Hawaii. Costs taxed to respondent.

Judgment accordingly.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

612 N.E.2d 1225, 66 Ohio St. 3d 338, 1993 Ohio LEXIS 1131, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/office-of-disciplinary-counsel-v-jackson-ohio-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack