Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Romaniw
700 N.E.2d 858, 83 Ohio St. 3d 462
Opinion
As we said in Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Belock (1998), 82 Ohio St.3d 98, 100, 694 N.E.2d 897, 899, “The continuing public confidence in the judicial system and the bar requires that the strictest discipline be imposed in misappropriation cases.” We find no mitigating circumstances here that would justify an exception to that principle. Respondent is hereby permanently disbarred from the practice of law in Ohio. Costs are taxed to respondent.
Judgment accordingly.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Romaniw, 700 N.E.2d 858, 83 Ohio St. 3d 462 (Ohio 1998).
700 N.E.2d 858 (Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Romaniw) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Disciplinary Counsel v. Nagorny
105 Ohio St. 3d 97 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2004)
Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Young
2000 Ohio 160 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2000)
Disciplinary Counsel v. Roberts
1999 Ohio 196 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1999)
In Re Skrobut, Unpublished Decision (9-10-1999)
Ohio Court of Appeals, 1999
Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Roberts
715 N.E.2d 1138 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1999)
Lake Cty. Bar Assn. v. Mazzocco
1999 Ohio 277 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1999)
Lake County Bar Ass'n v. Mazzocco
709 N.E.2d 114 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1999)
Disciplinary Counsel v. Romaniw
1998 Ohio 25 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1998)