Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Soucek

523 N.E.2d 513, 37 Ohio St. 3d 42, 1988 Ohio LEXIS 136
Ohio Supreme Court·Decided May 25, 1988·No. No. D.D. 87-27·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinions

Per Curiam.

This court finds that respondent violated the Disciplinary Rules indicated by the board. However, we find the sanction recommended was not appropriate when compared to the misconduct committed. Accordingly, respondent is hereby ordered indefinitely suspended from the practice of law in Ohio. Costs taxed to respondent.

Judgment accordingly.

Moyer, C.J., Sweeney, Locher, Holmes, Douglas and H. Brown, JJ., concur. Wright, J., dissents.

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

Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Soucek, 523 N.E.2d 513, 37 Ohio St. 3d 42, 1988 Ohio LEXIS 136 (Ohio 1988).

523 N.E.2d 513 (Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Soucek) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Akron Bar Ass'n v. Chandler
584 N.E.2d 677 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1992)
State Ex Rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Wright
1990 OK 45 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1990)
In re Corrigan
546 N.E.2d 1315 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1989)
Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Bell
530 N.E.2d 404 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1988)