Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Mbakpuo
652 N.E.2d 976, 73 Ohio St. 3d 292, 1995 Ohio LEXIS 1825
Opinion
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.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Mbakpuo, 652 N.E.2d 976, 73 Ohio St. 3d 292, 1995 Ohio LEXIS 1825 (Ohio 1995).
652 N.E.2d 976 (Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Mbakpuo) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
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)