Toledo Bar Ass'n v. Lockhart

701 N.E.2d 686, 84 Ohio St. 3d 7
Ohio Supreme Court·Decided November 10, 1998·No. No. 98-401·Published·Cited by 7 cases

Opinions

Per Curiam.

We adopt the findings and conclusions of the board. Respondent’s shoplifting violated DR 1-102(A)(4). Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Fidler (1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 396, 700 N.E.2d 323.

[9] In view of respondent’s attempts to rehabilitate herself, we adopt the recommendation of the panel. Respondent is hereby suspended from the practice of law for two years, with one year of that suspension stayed. Respondent will be placed on probation, and her reinstatement will be conditioned on her payment of all fines and other costs related to her actions. Upon completion of the suspension, she shall submit to a complete psychiatric examination by a physician of relator’s choice to determine whether she is emotionally fit to resume the practice of law. Costs are taxed to respondent.

Judgment accordingly.

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Young, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer and Lundberg Stratton, . JJ., concur. Cook, J., dissents. John C. Young, J., of the Tenth Appellate District, sitting for Resnick, J.

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

Toledo Bar Ass'n v. Lockhart, 701 N.E.2d 686, 84 Ohio St. 3d 7 (Ohio 1998).

701 N.E.2d 686 (Toledo Bar Ass'n v. Lockhart) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

In Re: Elise Marybeth Lamartina
235 So. 3d 1061 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 2017)
Cincinnati Bar Ass'n v. Moore
36 N.E.3d 171 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2015)
Disciplinary Counsel v. Niles
2010 Ohio 2517 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2010)
Toledo Bar Assn. v. Lockhart
1998 Ohio 687 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1998)