Opinion

Disciplinary Counsel v. Gross

  • 11 Ohio St. 3d 48
  • 11 Ohio B. 195
  • 463 N.E.2d 382
  • 1984 Ohio LEXIS 1101
Court
Ohio Supreme Court
Filed
May 23, 1984
Status
Published
On the bench
Brown, Celebrezze, Holmes, Locher, Sweeney
Cited by
4 cases
Authority
More cited than 80.2%

The opinion

Per Curiam.

Upon a review of the record, we find that respondent has violated DR 1-102(A)(6) as to both counts. Further, after ¿n analysis of the facts presented, particularly those that would show that respondent is suffering from a serious alcohol/drug problem and is not capable of meeting his personal responsibilities, much less capable- of handling legal matters entrusted to him, we conclude that a period of rehabilitation is required for this respondent to be able to present himself capable of practicing the profession of law.

*50 Therefore, we adopt the recommendation of the board of commissioners and agree that a stronger sanction than public reprimand is needed.

It is the judgment of this court that respondent, Bernard Gross, be indefinitely suspended from the practice of law.

Judgment accordingly.

Celebrezze, C.J., W. Brown, Sweeney, Locher, Holmes, C. Brown and J. P. Celebrezze, JJ., concur.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.