Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Sweeney

Ohio Supreme Court

Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Sweeney

704 N.E.2d 248, 84 Ohio St. 3d 388

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedJanuary 13, 1999

DocketNo. 98-1302

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 704 N.E.2d 248 (Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Sweeney) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Sweeney, 704 N.E.2d 248, 84 Ohio St. 3d 388 (Ohio 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

We adopt the findings and conclusions of the board. We note that respondent did plead guilty to a felony and has not made restitution as ordered by the federal court. Nor did respondent produce evidence that he made the restitution we ordered in 1994 as a condition of reinstatement. We have reviewed in detail the evidence submitted in mitigation, and we believe that a [390]*390more severe sanction than indefinite suspension is warranted by the facts in this case. Respondent is hereby permanently disbarred from the practice of law in Ohio. Costs taxed to respondent.

Judgment accordingly.

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

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

Per Curiam.

We adopt the findings and conclusions of the board. We note that respondent did plead guilty to a felony and has not made restitution as ordered by the federal court. Nor did respondent produce evidence that he made the restitution we ordered in 1994 as a condition of reinstatement. We have reviewed in detail the evidence submitted in mitigation, and we believe that a [390]*390more severe sanction than indefinite suspension is warranted by the facts in this case. Respondent is hereby permanently disbarred from the practice of law in Ohio. Costs taxed to respondent.

Judgment accordingly.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

704 N.E.2d 248, 84 Ohio St. 3d 388, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/office-of-disciplinary-counsel-v-sweeney-ohio-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack