Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. King

617 N.E.2d 676, 67 Ohio St. 3d 236
CourtOhio Supreme Court
DecidedSeptember 8, 1993
DocketNo. 93-867
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 617 N.E.2d 676 (Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. King) 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. King, 617 N.E.2d 676, 67 Ohio St. 3d 236 (Ohio 1993).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

We adopt the findings of fact and recommendations of the board. Respondent, Barry King, is hereby publicly reprimanded. 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

Related

Matter of Yarborough
488 S.E.2d 871 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1997)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
617 N.E.2d 676, 67 Ohio St. 3d 236, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/office-of-disciplinary-counsel-v-king-ohio-1993.