Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Jefferson

699 N.E.2d 930, 83 Ohio St. 3d 317
Ohio Supreme Court·Decided September 30, 1998·No. No. 98-757·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

We adopt the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the board. Absent any mitigating circumstances, the penalty for ignoring orders of the court and continuing to practice law while under suspension is disbarment. Disciplinary Counsel v. Chavers (1997), 80 Ohio St.3d 441, 687 N.E.2d 415, and cases cited therein. Respondent is hereby permanently disbarred from the practice of law in Ohio. Costs taxed to respondent.

Judgment accordingly.

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.

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

Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Jefferson, 699 N.E.2d 930, 83 Ohio St. 3d 317 (Ohio 1998).

699 N.E.2d 930 (Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Jefferson) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Cincinnati Bar Ass'n v. Rothermel
860 N.E.2d 754 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2007)
Disciplinary Counsel v. Henderson
844 N.E.2d 348 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2006)
Disciplinary Counsel v. Jefferson
1998 Ohio 87 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1998)