Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Pizzedaz

Ohio Supreme Court

Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Pizzedaz

628 N.E.2d 1359, 68 Ohio St. 3d 486

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedMarch 23, 1994

DocketNo. 93-2176

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 628 N.E.2d 1359 (Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Pizzedaz) 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. Pizzedaz, 628 N.E.2d 1359, 68 Ohio St. 3d 486 (Ohio 1994).

Pincite

Opinions

Per Curiam.

We agree with the board’s findings that respondent violated DR 1 — 102(A)(3), (4) and (6). ■ However, we reject the indefinite suspension the board recommended. Respondent’s misconduct manifests the public’s worst fear about lawyers. His crimes prove that he will take advantage of public trust if given the opportunity. Thus, unlike the board and panel, we are not impressed with respondent’s admission of guilt, remorse, full restitution, and efforts to comply with the terms of his probation. Rather, we find respondent’s dishonesty deserving of the full measure of our disciplinary authority. • Respondent is therefore permanently disbarred from the practice of law in Ohio. Costs taxed to respondent.

Judgment accordingly.

Moyer, C.J., A.W. Sweeney, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney and Pfeifer, JJ., concur. Douglas and Wright, JJ., dissent.

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

Per Curiam.

We agree with the board’s findings that respondent violated DR 1 — 102(A)(3), (4) and (6). ■ However, we reject the indefinite suspension the board recommended. Respondent’s misconduct manifests the public’s worst fear about lawyers. His crimes prove that he will take advantage of public trust if given the opportunity. Thus, unlike the board and panel, we are not impressed with respondent’s admission of guilt, remorse, full restitution, and efforts to comply with the terms of his probation. Rather, we find respondent’s dishonesty deserving of the full measure of our disciplinary authority. • Respondent is therefore permanently disbarred from the practice of law in Ohio. Costs taxed to respondent.

Judgment accordingly.

Moyer, C.J., A.W. Sweeney, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney and Pfeifer, JJ., concur. Douglas and Wright, JJ., dissent.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

628 N.E.2d 1359, 68 Ohio St. 3d 486, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/office-of-disciplinary-counsel-v-pizzedaz-ohio-1994.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack