Toledo Bar Ass'n v. Rust

Ohio Supreme Court

Toledo Bar Ass'n v. Rust

660 N.E.2d 1175, 74 Ohio St. 3d 635

Ohio Supreme Court·Decided February 28, 1996·No. No. 95-2128·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Upon review of the record, we concur in the board’s findings of misconduct, but we consider public reprimand a sufficient sanction. Respondent is therefore publicly reprimanded for his violations of DR 5-105(A) and (B) and 9-102(A). Costs taxed to respondent.

Judgment accordingly.

Moyer, C.J., Wright, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer and Cook, JJ., concur. Douglas and Resnick, JJ., not participating.

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

Per Curiam.

Upon review of the record, we concur in the board’s findings of misconduct, but we consider public reprimand a sufficient sanction. Respondent is therefore publicly reprimanded for his violations of DR 5-105(A) and (B) and 9-102(A). Costs taxed to respondent.

Judgment accordingly.

Moyer, C.J., Wright, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer and Cook, JJ., concur. Douglas and Resnick, JJ., not participating.

Toledo Bar Ass'n v. Rust, 660 N.E.2d 1175, 74 Ohio St. 3d 635 (Ohio 1996).

Pincite

660 N.E.2d 1175 (Toledo Bar Ass'n v. Rust) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related