Toledo Bar Ass'n v. Stichter

Ohio Supreme Court

Toledo Bar Ass'n v. Stichter

478 N.E.2d 1322, 17 Ohio St. 3d 248, 17 Ohio B. 484, 1985 Ohio LEXIS 348

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedJune 12, 1985

DocketD.D. No. 85-1

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 478 N.E.2d 1322 (Toledo Bar Ass'n v. Stichter) 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

Toledo Bar Ass'n v. Stichter, 478 N.E.2d 1322, 17 Ohio St. 3d 248, 17 Ohio B. 484, 1985 Ohio LEXIS 348 (Ohio 1985).

Pincite

Opinions

Per Curiam.

After a careful review of the facts and circumstances underlying the instant disciplinary action, we are convinced that the respondent has violated DR 1-102(A)(4) and (6) of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

[249]*249We note that the responsibility for properly filing one’s tax returns is a responsibility that should never be taken lightly by any citizen, especially one who is licensed as an officer of the court. We are convinced that the respondent has come to realize the gravity of his offense by virtue of his willingness to fully cooperate with the Internal Revenue Service. Nevertheless, the illegal conduct undertaken by respondent in the past should not be countenanced by this court and, therefore, we find that the sanction recommended by the board fits the offense for which respondent was convicted.

Accordingly, it is the judgment of this court that respondent be suspended from the practice of law in the state of Ohio for a period of one year.

Judgment accordingly.

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

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

Per Curiam.

After a careful review of the facts and circumstances underlying the instant disciplinary action, we are convinced that the respondent has violated DR 1-102(A)(4) and (6) of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

[249]*249We note that the responsibility for properly filing one’s tax returns is a responsibility that should never be taken lightly by any citizen, especially one who is licensed as an officer of the court. We are convinced that the respondent has come to realize the gravity of his offense by virtue of his willingness to fully cooperate with the Internal Revenue Service. Nevertheless, the illegal conduct undertaken by respondent in the past should not be countenanced by this court and, therefore, we find that the sanction recommended by the board fits the offense for which respondent was convicted.

Accordingly, it is the judgment of this court that respondent be suspended from the practice of law in the state of Ohio for a period of one year.

Judgment accordingly.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

478 N.E.2d 1322, 17 Ohio St. 3d 248, 17 Ohio B. 484, 1985 Ohio LEXIS 348, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/toledo-bar-assn-v-stichter-ohio-1985.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack