Toledo Bar Ass'n v. Trepinski

Ohio Supreme Court

Toledo Bar Ass'n v. Trepinski

173 Ohio St. (N.S.) 268

Ohio Supreme Court·Decided April 4, 1962·No. D. D. No. 20·Published

Opinion

Per Curiam.

After a careful review of the record, this court is of the opinion that the discipline to be administered should be a public reprimand, and it is so ordered.

Judgment accordingly.

Weygandt, C. J., Zimmerman, Matthias, Bell, Kerns and O’Neill, JJ., concur. Tart, J., concurs in the judgment. Weygandt, C. J., Zimmerman and Taet, JJ., concur for the additional reason that- counsel for the relator expressed the view in open court that a public reprimand is sufficient. Kerns, J., of the Second Appellate District, sitting by designation in the place and stead of Herbert, J.

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

Per Curiam.

After a careful review of the record, this court is of the opinion that the discipline to be administered should be a public reprimand, and it is so ordered.

Judgment accordingly.

Weygandt, C. J., Zimmerman, Matthias, Bell, Kerns and O’Neill, JJ., concur. Tart, J., concurs in the judgment. Weygandt, C. J., Zimmerman and Taet, JJ., concur for the additional reason that- counsel for the relator expressed the view in open court that a public reprimand is sufficient. Kerns, J., of the Second Appellate District, sitting by designation in the place and stead of Herbert, J.

Toledo Bar Ass'n v. Trepinski, 173 Ohio St. (N.S.) 268 (Ohio 1962).

Pincite

173 Ohio St. (N.S.) 268 (Toledo Bar Ass'n v. Trepinski) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.