Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Slodov

660 N.E.2d 1164, 74 Ohio St. 3d 618
Ohio Supreme Court·Decided February 28, 1996·No. No. 95-2176·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Upon review of the record, we concur in the board’s findings of misconduct and recommended sanction. Respondent is therefore publicly reprimanded for his violations of DR 7-109(B) and 1-102(A)(5) and (6). 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. Slodov, 660 N.E.2d 1164, 74 Ohio St. 3d 618 (Ohio 1996).

660 N.E.2d 1164 (Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Slodov) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Disciplinary Counsel v. Slodov
1996 Ohio 243 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1996)