Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Timonere

Ohio Supreme Court

Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Timonere

660 N.E.2d 1171, 74 Ohio St. 3d 629

Ohio Supreme Court·Decided February 28, 1996·No. No. 94-2646·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Upon review of the record, we concur that respondent violated DR 1 — 102(A)(3) and (6). We also agree that respondent’s egregious misconduct deserves the full measure of our disciplinary authority. Respondent is therefore ordered permanently disbarred from the practice of law in Ohio. 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

Per Curiam.

Upon review of the record, we concur that respondent violated DR 1 — 102(A)(3) and (6). We also agree that respondent’s egregious misconduct deserves the full measure of our disciplinary authority. Respondent is therefore ordered permanently disbarred from the practice of law in Ohio. Costs taxed to respondent.

Judgment accordingly.

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

Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Timonere, 660 N.E.2d 1171, 74 Ohio St. 3d 629 (Ohio 1996).

Pincite

660 N.E.2d 1171 (Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Timonere) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related