Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Slodov
660 N.E.2d 1164, 74 Ohio St. 3d 618
Opinion
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.
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
In Re Kimble, Unpublished Decision (5-15-2002)
Ohio Court of Appeals, 2002
Disciplinary Counsel v. Slodov
1996 Ohio 243 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1996)