Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Stanford

607 N.E.2d 830, 66 Ohio St. 3d 39
Ohio Supreme Court·Decided March 3, 1993·No. No. 92-2169·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

We concur in the findings and recommendation of the board. Respondent’s crime was a serious breach of trust. However, the record indicates remorse, and we believe there may be potential for rehabilitation. Accordingly, respondent is hereby indefinitely suspended from the practice of law in Ohio without credit for time previously spent under suspension. Costs taxed to respondent.

Judgment accordingly.

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

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

Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Stanford, 607 N.E.2d 830, 66 Ohio St. 3d 39 (Ohio 1993).

607 N.E.2d 830 (Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Stanford) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Williams
84 Ohio St. 3d 392 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1999)