Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Mbakpuo

652 N.E.2d 976, 73 Ohio St. 3d 292, 1995 Ohio LEXIS 1825
CourtOhio Supreme Court
DecidedAugust 23, 1995
DocketNo. 94-2645
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 652 N.E.2d 976 (Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Mbakpuo) 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. Mbakpuo, 652 N.E.2d 976, 73 Ohio St. 3d 292, 1995 Ohio LEXIS 1825 (Ohio 1995).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Having reviewed the record, we concur in the board’s finding that respondent violated DR 1-102(A)(4), (5) and (6); 2-102(A)(4) and (C); 2-106(A); 3 — 101(B); 6-101(A)(3); and 7-101(A)(3); and Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G). We further concur in the recommended sanction. Respondent is therefore suspended from the practice of law in Ohio indefinitely. Costs taxed to respondent.

Judgment accordingly.

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Wright, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer and Cook, JJ., concur. Resnick, J., dissents and would disbar respondent.

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

Related

In Re Mbakpuo
829 A.2d 217 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 2003)
Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Mbakpuo
2002 Ohio 7087 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2002)
Disciplinary Counsel v. Mbakpuo
2000 Ohio 138 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2000)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
652 N.E.2d 976, 73 Ohio St. 3d 292, 1995 Ohio LEXIS 1825, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/office-of-disciplinary-counsel-v-mbakpuo-ohio-1995.