Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Orr

648 N.E.2d 1349, 72 Ohio St. 3d 241
Ohio Supreme Court·Decided May 24, 1995·No. No. 94-2305·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

We agree with the board that respondent violated the cited Disciplinary Rules and Rules for the Government of the Bar, and we concur in its decision to dismiss Count VI. We cannot, however, concur in the recommendation for a two-year suspension with one year suspended on conditions. Rather, we find an indefinite suspension from the practice of law to be a more appropriate sanction for the serious misconduct committed in this case. Respondent is, therefore, suspended from the practice of law indefinitely, and any petition for reinstatement he files must be accompanied by proof that he has complied with the conditions set forth by the board. Costs taxed to respondent.

Judgment accordingly.

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

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

Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Orr, 648 N.E.2d 1349, 72 Ohio St. 3d 241 (Ohio 1995).

648 N.E.2d 1349 (Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Orr) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Hill v. Ross
2013 Ohio 1903 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2013)
Disciplinary Counsel v. Orr
1995 Ohio 256 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1995)