Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Nentwick

705 N.E.2d 668, 84 Ohio St. 3d 491
CourtOhio Supreme Court
DecidedFebruary 10, 1999
DocketNo. 98-1323
StatusPublished

This text of 705 N.E.2d 668 (Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Nentwick) 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. Nentwick, 705 N.E.2d 668, 84 Ohio St. 3d 491 (Ohio 1999).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

We adopt the findings of the board and its conclusions, except the conclusion that in the MacKall matter respondent violated DR 7-102(A)(2) (knowingly advancing a claim or defense unwarranted under existing law), which the board erroneously characterized as “failing to carry out a contract of employment.” We also adopt the recommendation of the board. Respondent is hereby permanently disbarred from the practice of law in Ohio. Costs are taxed to respondent.

Judgment accordingly.

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

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
705 N.E.2d 668, 84 Ohio St. 3d 491, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/office-of-disciplinary-counsel-v-nentwick-ohio-1999.