Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Scurry

Ohio Supreme Court

Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Scurry

666 N.E.2d 1089, 76 Ohio St. 3d 95

Ohio Supreme Court·Decided July 24, 1996·No. No. 96-525·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This court adopts the findings and recommendations of the board. Clearly, respondent’s alcoholism has caused him to neglect his duties to his clients and has adversely reflected on his fitness to practice law. However, we recognize, as did the board, that respondent has taken measures to resolve his problems.

Respondent is hereby suspended from the practice of law for one year, with the entire time stayed, provided that respondent adhere to the conditions of his two-year probation as set forth by the board. Costs taxed to respondent.

Judgment accordingly.

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Stratton, JJ., concur.

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

Per Curiam.

This court adopts the findings and recommendations of the board. Clearly, respondent’s alcoholism has caused him to neglect his duties to his clients and has adversely reflected on his fitness to practice law. However, we recognize, as did the board, that respondent has taken measures to resolve his problems.

Respondent is hereby suspended from the practice of law for one year, with the entire time stayed, provided that respondent adhere to the conditions of his two-year probation as set forth by the board. Costs taxed to respondent.

Judgment accordingly.

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Stratton, JJ., concur.

Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Scurry, 666 N.E.2d 1089, 76 Ohio St. 3d 95 (Ohio 1996).

Pincite

666 N.E.2d 1089 (Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Scurry) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related