Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Nichols

Ohio Supreme Court

Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Nichols

607 N.E.2d 1068, 66 Ohio St. 3d 54

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedMarch 17, 1993

DocketNo. 92-1324

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 607 N.E.2d 1068 (Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Nichols) 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. Nichols, 607 N.E.2d 1068, 66 Ohio St. 3d 54 (Ohio 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

We agree that respondent committed the additional misconduct found by the board. However, we believe these four instances of neglect to be related to those we considered in Columbus Bar Assn. v. Nichols, supra, which were attributable to respondent’s severe depression, now controlled through medication. Accordingly, we treat this as a continuation of the earlier case and, to appropriately sanction respondent for all his misconduct, we augment his initial penalty by imposing an additional six-month suspension, to be served consecutively, from the practice of law in Ohio. This sanction is also suspended, however, on the condition that respondent complete a third year of monitored probation during which he must comply with the Code of Professional Responsibility and the Supreme Court Rules for the Government of the Bar of Ohio. Costs taxed to respondent.

Judgment accordingly.

A.W. Sweeney, Douglas, Wright, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney and Pfeifer, JJ., concur. [56]*56Moyer, C.J., dissents and would order a six-month suspension without a stay of execution.

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

Per Curiam.

We agree that respondent committed the additional misconduct found by the board. However, we believe these four instances of neglect to be related to those we considered in Columbus Bar Assn. v. Nichols, supra, which were attributable to respondent’s severe depression, now controlled through medication. Accordingly, we treat this as a continuation of the earlier case and, to appropriately sanction respondent for all his misconduct, we augment his initial penalty by imposing an additional six-month suspension, to be served consecutively, from the practice of law in Ohio. This sanction is also suspended, however, on the condition that respondent complete a third year of monitored probation during which he must comply with the Code of Professional Responsibility and the Supreme Court Rules for the Government of the Bar of Ohio. Costs taxed to respondent.

Judgment accordingly.

A.W. Sweeney, Douglas, Wright, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney and Pfeifer, JJ., concur. [56]*56Moyer, C.J., dissents and would order a six-month suspension without a stay of execution.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

607 N.E.2d 1068, 66 Ohio St. 3d 54, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/office-of-disciplinary-counsel-v-nichols-ohio-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack