Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Linick

Ohio Supreme Court

Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Linick

705 N.E.2d 667, 84 Ohio St. 3d 489

Ohio Supreme Court·Decided February 10, 1999·No. No. 98-1241·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinions

Per Curiam.

We adopt the findings and conclusions of the board. On review of the record, we find that respondent’s conduct violated DR 2-107(A)(l) and 5-107(A)(2) as found by the board. In Ohio State Bar Assn. v. Zuckerman (1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 148, 699 N.E.2d 40, we imposed a one-year suspension on one of the outside counsel who participated in this scheme. We believe that the same sanction is appropriate for respondent. Respondent is hereby suspended from the practice of law in Ohio for one year. Costs taxed to respondent.

Judgment accordingly.

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

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

Per Curiam.

We adopt the findings and conclusions of the board. On review of the record, we find that respondent’s conduct violated DR 2-107(A)(l) and 5-107(A)(2) as found by the board. In Ohio State Bar Assn. v. Zuckerman (1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 148, 699 N.E.2d 40, we imposed a one-year suspension on one of the outside counsel who participated in this scheme. We believe that the same sanction is appropriate for respondent. Respondent is hereby suspended from the practice of law in Ohio for one year. Costs taxed to respondent.

Judgment accordingly.

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

Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Linick, 705 N.E.2d 667, 84 Ohio St. 3d 489 (Ohio 1999).

Pincite

705 N.E.2d 667 (Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Linick) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinions

Related