Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Paxton
610 N.E.2d 979, 66 Ohio St. 3d 163, 1993 Ohio LEXIS 817
Opinion
After reading the testimonial letters submitted by respondent, we agree with the findings and recommendation of the board. We hereby publicly reprimand respondent and tax costs to him.
Judgment accordingly.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Paxton, 610 N.E.2d 979, 66 Ohio St. 3d 163, 1993 Ohio LEXIS 817 (Ohio 1993).
610 N.E.2d 979 (Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Paxton) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Disciplinary Counsel v. Siewert
2011 Ohio 5935 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2011)
Cleveland Bar Ass'n v. Kodish
110 Ohio St. 3d 162 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2006)
Disciplinary Counsel v. Engler
851 N.E.2d 502 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2006)
Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Moore
804 N.E.2d 423 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2004)
Doe v. Roe (In Re Roe)
274 B.R. 61 (D. Connecticut, 2002)
In Re Ashy
721 So. 2d 859 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1998)
In Re Berg
955 P.2d 1240 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1998)
In Re Howard
912 S.W.2d 61 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1995)