Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. King

617 N.E.2d 676, 67 Ohio St. 3d 236

Ohio Supreme Court·Decided September 8, 1993·No. No. 93-867·Published·Cited by 1 cases

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

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

Pincite

617 N.E.2d 676 (Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. King) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.