Toledo Bar Ass'n v. Mansour-Ismail

711 N.E.2d 223, 86 Ohio St. 3d 27
Ohio Supreme Court·Decided June 16, 1999·No. No. 99-380·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

We adopt the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the board. Respondent violated DR 7-104(A)(l) by communicating directly with adverse parties represented by counsel about the subject of the representation without their counsel’s consent. As in comparable cases involving a violation of DR 7-104(A)(l), a public reprimand is an appropriate sanction. See Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Rossi (1998), 81 Ohio St.3d 195, 690 N.E.2d 501; Trumbull Cty. Bar Assn. v. Makridis (1996), 77 Ohio St.3d 73, 671 N.E.2d 31; Toledo Bar Assn. v. Savage (1995), 74 Ohio St.3d 183, 657 N.E.2d 507. Accordingly, respondent is hereby publicly reprimanded. Costs taxed to respondent.

Judgment affirmed.

Moyer, C.J., Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur. 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. Mansour-Ismail, 711 N.E.2d 223, 86 Ohio St. 3d 27 (Ohio 1999).

711 N.E.2d 223 (Toledo Bar Ass'n v. Mansour-Ismail) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Toledo Bar Association v. Rehkopf.
2018 Ohio 3907 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2018)
Disciplinary Counsel v. Sartini
114 Ohio St. 3d 205 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2007)
Toledo Bar Assn. v. Mansour-Ismail
1999 Ohio 78 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1999)