Toledo Bar Ass'n v. Christensen

671 N.E.2d 30, 77 Ohio St. 3d 71
Ohio Supreme Court·Decided November 6, 1996·No. No. 96-1427·Published·Cited by 8 cases

Opinions

Per Curiam.

We adopt the findings of fact of the board. Further, we conclude that respondent has engaged in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law in violation of DR 1-102(A)(6) by (1) undertaking the representation of Good when he had failed to comply with the registration requirements of Gov.Bar R. VI, (2) failing to comply with the sanctions imposed for not meeting the continuing legal education requirements of Gov.Bar R. X, and (3) failing to cooperate with the grievance investigation as required by Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G). Therefore, respondent is indefinitely suspended from the practice of law in Ohio. Costs taxed to respondent.

Judgment accordingly.

Mover, C.J., Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer and Stratton, JJ., concur. Cook, J., dissents. Douglas, J., not participating.

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

Toledo Bar Ass'n v. Christensen, 671 N.E.2d 30, 77 Ohio St. 3d 71 (Ohio 1996).

671 N.E.2d 30 (Toledo Bar Ass'n v. Christensen) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Disciplinary Counsel v. Higgins
117 Ohio St. 3d 473 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2008)
Akron Bar Ass'n v. Barron
707 N.E.2d 850 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1999)
Disciplinary Counsel v. Blackwell
1997 Ohio 377 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1997)
Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Blackwell
683 N.E.2d 1074 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1997)
Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Baas
1997 Ohio 389 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1997)
Toledo Bar Assn. v. Christensen
1996 Ohio 370 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1996)