Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Rothermel
472 N.E.2d 1072, 15 Ohio St. 3d 121, 15 Ohio B. 272, 1984 Ohio LEXIS 1275
Opinion
Inasmuch as respondent has filed no objections to the board’s recommendations, we agree that the appropriate sanction for respondent is a one-year suspension.
Accordingly, we adopt the findings and recommendations of the board and hereby suspend respondent from the practice of law for a period of one year.
Judgment accordingly.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Rothermel, 472 N.E.2d 1072, 15 Ohio St. 3d 121, 15 Ohio B. 272, 1984 Ohio LEXIS 1275 (Ohio 1984).
472 N.E.2d 1072 (Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Rothermel) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
State v. Cotton
2015 Ohio 180 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2015)
Cincinnati Bar Ass'n v. Rothermel
819 N.E.2d 1099 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2004)
Disciplinary Counsel v. Rothermel
1999 Ohio 243 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1999)
Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Rothermel
716 N.E.2d 712 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1999)
Doe v. First Presbyterian Church
710 N.E.2d 367 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 1998)
Schluter v. Psl, Inc. , Unpublished Decision (2-3-1998)
Ohio Court of Appeals, 1998
Windsor v. Ridge Electric Co., Inc., Unpublished Decision (2-2-1998)
Ohio Court of Appeals, 1998