Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. York

Ohio Supreme Court

Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. York

483 N.E.2d 1179, 19 Ohio St. 3d 150, 19 Ohio B. 372, 1985 Ohio LEXIS 523

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedOctober 9, 1985

DocketD.D. No. 85-13

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 483 N.E.2d 1179 (Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. York) 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. York, 483 N.E.2d 1179, 19 Ohio St. 3d 150, 19 Ohio B. 372, 1985 Ohio LEXIS 523 (Ohio 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Having reviewed the record and the findings of fact and conclusions of law of the board, this court determines that there are ample facts to justify the board’s findings that respondent violated DR 9-102(A), (B)(2), (3) and (4), and 1-102(A)(4), (5) and (6).

In addition, it is undisputed that respondent was previously suspended from the practice of law on June 24, 1981 for a period of one year. (Bar [152]*152Assn. v. York [1981], 66 Ohio St. 2d 485 [20 O.O.3d 404].) Gov. Bar R. V(7) provides in pertinent part: “* * * A person who has been suspended for a period of one year from the practice of law or who has been publicly reprimanded for misconduct, upon being found guilty of subsequent misconduct, shall be suspended for an indefinite period from the practice of law or permanently disbarred, depending upon the seriousness of such misconduct.” (Emphasis added.)

Accordingly, it is the judgment of this court that respondent be indefinitely suspended from the practice of law, and it is so ordered.

Judgment accordingly.

Celebrezze, C.J., Sweeney, Locher, Holmes, C. Brown, Douglas and Wright, JJ., concur.

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

Per Curiam.

Having reviewed the record and the findings of fact and conclusions of law of the board, this court determines that there are ample facts to justify the board’s findings that respondent violated DR 9-102(A), (B)(2), (3) and (4), and 1-102(A)(4), (5) and (6).

In addition, it is undisputed that respondent was previously suspended from the practice of law on June 24, 1981 for a period of one year. (Bar [152]*152Assn. v. York [1981], 66 Ohio St. 2d 485 [20 O.O.3d 404].) Gov. Bar R. V(7) provides in pertinent part: “* * * A person who has been suspended for a period of one year from the practice of law or who has been publicly reprimanded for misconduct, upon being found guilty of subsequent misconduct, shall be suspended for an indefinite period from the practice of law or permanently disbarred, depending upon the seriousness of such misconduct.” (Emphasis added.)

Accordingly, it is the judgment of this court that respondent be indefinitely suspended from the practice of law, and it is so ordered.

Judgment accordingly.

Celebrezze, C.J., Sweeney, Locher, Holmes, C. Brown, Douglas and Wright, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

483 N.E.2d 1179, 19 Ohio St. 3d 150, 19 Ohio B. 372, 1985 Ohio LEXIS 523, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/office-of-disciplinary-counsel-v-york-ohio-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack