Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. McClenaghan
This text of 565 N.E.2d 572 (Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. McClenaghan) 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.
Opinion
We agree with relator that precedent supports imposing an indefinite suspension on respondent for his bribery conviction. Moreover, we find insufficient mitigating evidence to reduce that penalty. Respondent, formerly a high-ranking public official, bribed an employee in the division he had once headed. Letters of support do not easily mitigate such conduct. Therefore, we hereby adopt- the recommendation of the board and indefinitely suspend respondent from the practice of law. Costs taxed to respondent.
Judgment accordingly.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
565 N.E.2d 572, 57 Ohio St. 3d 21, 1991 Ohio LEXIS 18, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/office-of-disciplinary-counsel-v-mcclenaghan-ohio-1991.