Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Leyshon

Ohio Supreme Court

Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Leyshon

625 N.E.2d 602, 68 Ohio St. 3d 202

Ohio Supreme Court·Decided February 2, 1994·No. No. 93-1712·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

We agree with the board’s findings and recommendations. Accordingly, we suspend respondent from the practice of law for two years, with the final year of the suspension stayed for a probationary period of two years, if during this period the respondent receives continuing treatment from a licensed psychiatrist or psychologist such as Dr. Siddall. Costs taxed to respondent.

Judgment accordingly.

Moyer, C.J., A.W. Sweeney, Douglas, Wright, Resnick and F.E. Sweeney, JJ., concur. [205] Pfeifer, J., dissents and would suspend respondent from the practice of law for one year, with six months stayed.

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

Per Curiam.

We agree with the board’s findings and recommendations. Accordingly, we suspend respondent from the practice of law for two years, with the final year of the suspension stayed for a probationary period of two years, if during this period the respondent receives continuing treatment from a licensed psychiatrist or psychologist such as Dr. Siddall. Costs taxed to respondent.

Judgment accordingly.

Moyer, C.J., A.W. Sweeney, Douglas, Wright, Resnick and F.E. Sweeney, JJ., concur. [205] Pfeifer, J., dissents and would suspend respondent from the practice of law for one year, with six months stayed.

Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Leyshon, 625 N.E.2d 602, 68 Ohio St. 3d 202 (Ohio 1994).

Pincite

625 N.E.2d 602 (Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Leyshon) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related