Home/Ohio Supreme Court/Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Williams

Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Williams

66 Ohio St. 3d 41
Ohio Supreme Court·Decided March 3, 1993·No. No. 92-2207·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

We agree that respondent violated DR 1-102(A)(3) and 1-102(A)(4), and further agree that respondent’s unique psychological history is sufficiently mitigating to warrant the sanction of indefinite suspension. Accordingly, we order that respondent be indefinitely suspended from the practice of law in Ohio. Costs taxed to respondent.

Judgment accordingly.

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

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

Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Williams, 66 Ohio St. 3d 41 (Ohio 1993).

66 Ohio St. 3d 41 (Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Williams) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Disciplinary Counsel v. Williams
1997 Ohio 279 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1997)