Toledo Bar Ass'n v. Westmeyer

Ohio Supreme Court

Toledo Bar Ass'n v. Westmeyer

567 N.E.2d 1016, 58 Ohio St. 3d 38, 1991 Ohio LEXIS 404

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedMarch 6, 1991

DocketNo. 90-1704

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 567 N.E.2d 1016 (Toledo Bar Ass'n v. Westmeyer) 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. Westmeyer, 567 N.E.2d 1016, 58 Ohio St. 3d 38, 1991 Ohio LEXIS 404 (Ohio 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

We adopt the findings of fact and recommendations of the board. Additionally, we find that the panel did not err in refusing to admit the results of the polygraph examinations. Relator did not agree to their admission as required by Souel, supra. See, also, State v. Jamison (1990), 49 Ohio St. 3d 182, 190, 552 [40]*40N.E. 2d 180, 188. Moreover, we neither ordered the evidence admitted nor have we overruled Souel. We also reject respondent’s contention that the panel and board inappropriately considered respondent’s prior misconduct reported at Toledo Bar Assn. v. Westmeyer (1988), 35 Ohio St. 3d 261, 520 N.E. 2d 223. The prior misconduct was considered only in relation to consideration of an appropriate sanction. Moreover, the panel and board only recommend what this court’s order should be. Therefore, we conclude that respondent’s prior misconduct, based on similar charges, is relevant to the choice of sanction.

Respondent is hereby suspended from the practice of law in Ohio for one year. Costs, taxed to respondent.

Judgment accordingly.

Moyer, C.J., Holmes, Wright, H. Brown and Cacioppo, JJ., concur. Sweeney and Douglas, JJ., dissent. Mary Cacioppo, J., of the Ninth Appellate District, sitting for Resnick, J.

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

Per Curiam.

We adopt the findings of fact and recommendations of the board. Additionally, we find that the panel did not err in refusing to admit the results of the polygraph examinations. Relator did not agree to their admission as required by Souel, supra. See, also, State v. Jamison (1990), 49 Ohio St. 3d 182, 190, 552 [40]*40N.E. 2d 180, 188. Moreover, we neither ordered the evidence admitted nor have we overruled Souel. We also reject respondent’s contention that the panel and board inappropriately considered respondent’s prior misconduct reported at Toledo Bar Assn. v. Westmeyer (1988), 35 Ohio St. 3d 261, 520 N.E. 2d 223. The prior misconduct was considered only in relation to consideration of an appropriate sanction. Moreover, the panel and board only recommend what this court’s order should be. Therefore, we conclude that respondent’s prior misconduct, based on similar charges, is relevant to the choice of sanction.

Respondent is hereby suspended from the practice of law in Ohio for one year. Costs, taxed to respondent.

Judgment accordingly.

Moyer, C.J., Holmes, Wright, H. Brown and Cacioppo, JJ., concur. Sweeney and Douglas, JJ., dissent. Mary Cacioppo, J., of the Ninth Appellate District, sitting for Resnick, J.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

567 N.E.2d 1016, 58 Ohio St. 3d 38, 1991 Ohio LEXIS 404, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/toledo-bar-assn-v-westmeyer-ohio-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack