Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Nothstein

Ohio Supreme Court

Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Nothstein

488 N.E.2d 180, 21 Ohio St. 3d 108, 21 Ohio B. 400, 1986 Ohio LEXIS 538

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedJanuary 15, 1986

DocketD.D. No. 85-35

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 488 N.E.2d 180 (Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Nothstein) 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. Nothstein, 488 N.E.2d 180, 21 Ohio St. 3d 108, 21 Ohio B. 400, 1986 Ohio LEXIS 538 (Ohio 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

It is well-established by this court that embezzlement of funds is demonstrative of sufficient moral turpitude to justify disbarment. Bar Assn. v. McGarry (1979), 60 Ohio St.2d 168 [14 O.O.3d 406]; Lake County Bar Assn. v. Ostrander (1975), 41 Ohio St.2d 93 [70 O.O.2d 173]. Such a determination, however, is neither lightly nor automatically imposed. See, e.g., Reinstatement of Rasor (1974), 40 Ohio St. 2d 25 [69 O.O.2d 127] (mitigating circumstances offered with a finding that petitioner had rehabilitated himself to justify readmission to the bar).

In the present cause respondent’s apparent reluctance to offer mitigation on his own behalf, or to appear before the panel, does not help his position. A review of the record supports the board’s findings and recommendation which we adopt in their totality.

It is the judgment of this court that respondent be permanently disbarred from the practice of law.

Judgment accordingly.

Celebrezze, C.J., Sweeney, Locher, Holmes, C. Brown, Douglas and Wright, JJ., concur.

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

Per Curiam.

It is well-established by this court that embezzlement of funds is demonstrative of sufficient moral turpitude to justify disbarment. Bar Assn. v. McGarry (1979), 60 Ohio St.2d 168 [14 O.O.3d 406]; Lake County Bar Assn. v. Ostrander (1975), 41 Ohio St.2d 93 [70 O.O.2d 173]. Such a determination, however, is neither lightly nor automatically imposed. See, e.g., Reinstatement of Rasor (1974), 40 Ohio St. 2d 25 [69 O.O.2d 127] (mitigating circumstances offered with a finding that petitioner had rehabilitated himself to justify readmission to the bar).

In the present cause respondent’s apparent reluctance to offer mitigation on his own behalf, or to appear before the panel, does not help his position. A review of the record supports the board’s findings and recommendation which we adopt in their totality.

It is the judgment of this court that respondent be permanently disbarred from the practice of law.

Judgment accordingly.

Celebrezze, C.J., Sweeney, Locher, Holmes, C. Brown, Douglas and Wright, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

488 N.E.2d 180, 21 Ohio St. 3d 108, 21 Ohio B. 400, 1986 Ohio LEXIS 538, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/office-of-disciplinary-counsel-v-nothstein-ohio-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack