Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Schumann

642 N.E.2d 347, 71 Ohio St. 3d 101
Ohio Supreme Court·Decided December 7, 1994·No. No. 94-1813·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Having thoroughly reviewed the record, we agree with the board’s findings of misconduct and its recommendation. Accordingly, respondent is hereby publicly reprimanded. Costs taxed to respondent.

Judgment accordingly.

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

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

Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Schumann, 642 N.E.2d 347, 71 Ohio St. 3d 101 (Ohio 1994).

642 N.E.2d 347 (Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Schumann) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Lake Cty. Bar Assn. v. Speros
1995 Ohio 205 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1995)
Lake County Bar Ass'n v. Speros
652 N.E.2d 681 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1995)