Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Senne

646 N.E.2d 457, 71 Ohio St. 3d 614
Ohio Supreme Court·Decided March 22, 1995·No. No. 94-2307·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Having thoroughly reviewed the record in this case, we agree with the board’s findings that respondent violated DR 1-102(A)(5) and (6), 6-101(A)(3), 7-101(A)(2) and. Gov.Bar R. VI(1) and (3). We also concur in the recommended sanction. Accordingly, we order that respondent be suspended indefinitely from the practice of law in Ohio. Costs taxed to respondent.

Judgment accordingly.

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

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

Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Senne, 646 N.E.2d 457, 71 Ohio St. 3d 614 (Ohio 1995).

646 N.E.2d 457 (Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Senne) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Disciplinary Counsel v. Senne
1995 Ohio 257 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1995)