Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Wanner

Ohio Supreme Court

Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Wanner

473 N.E.2d 829, 15 Ohio St. 3d 319, 15 Ohio B. 446, 1984 Ohio LEXIS 1295

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedDecember 31, 1984

DocketD.D. No. 84-30

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 473 N.E.2d 829 (Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Wanner) 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. Wanner, 473 N.E.2d 829, 15 Ohio St. 3d 319, 15 Ohio B. 446, 1984 Ohio LEXIS 1295 (Ohio 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

After a careful review of the record, this court finds that respondent violated DR 1-102(A)(3), (5) and (6) of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

The record reveals that seven attorneys who were familiar with the respondent testified or wrote letters to the effect that the respondent was a competent, conscientious and ethical attorney. All of these attorneys firmly recommended against the respondent’s permanent disbarment. In light of the foregoing, and in view of respondent’s cooperation in the pro[320]*320ceedings below and his apparent desire to effectively deal with and resolve his problems, we agree that permanent disbarment is not warranted in this case.

We note, however, that while respondent’s misconduct did not occur as a part or result of his practice of law, his illegal actions took place while he was an employee of the Geauga County Juvenile Court, charged with the supervision and custody of juvenile females under the aegis of the court. That respondent failed miserably in his capacity as role model for the girls placed in his care is beyond cavil.

Accordingly, we adopt the recommendation of the board of commissioners, and respondent is hereby indefinitely suspended from the practice of law.

Judgment accordingly.

Celebrezze, C.J., W. Brown, Sweeney, Locher, Holmes, C. Brown and J. P. Celebrezze, JJ., concur.

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

Per Curiam.

After a careful review of the record, this court finds that respondent violated DR 1-102(A)(3), (5) and (6) of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

The record reveals that seven attorneys who were familiar with the respondent testified or wrote letters to the effect that the respondent was a competent, conscientious and ethical attorney. All of these attorneys firmly recommended against the respondent’s permanent disbarment. In light of the foregoing, and in view of respondent’s cooperation in the pro[320]*320ceedings below and his apparent desire to effectively deal with and resolve his problems, we agree that permanent disbarment is not warranted in this case.

We note, however, that while respondent’s misconduct did not occur as a part or result of his practice of law, his illegal actions took place while he was an employee of the Geauga County Juvenile Court, charged with the supervision and custody of juvenile females under the aegis of the court. That respondent failed miserably in his capacity as role model for the girls placed in his care is beyond cavil.

Accordingly, we adopt the recommendation of the board of commissioners, and respondent is hereby indefinitely suspended from the practice of law.

Judgment accordingly.

Celebrezze, C.J., W. Brown, Sweeney, Locher, Holmes, C. Brown and J. P. Celebrezze, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

473 N.E.2d 829, 15 Ohio St. 3d 319, 15 Ohio B. 446, 1984 Ohio LEXIS 1295, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/office-of-disciplinary-counsel-v-wanner-ohio-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack