Opinion

Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Bell

  • 15 Ohio St. 3d 118
  • 15 Ohio B. 269
  • 472 N.E.2d 1069
  • 1984 Ohio LEXIS 1274
Court
Ohio Supreme Court
Filed
Dec 31, 1984
Status
Published
Author
Holmes
On the bench
Brown, Celebrezze, Holmes, Locher, Sweeney
Cited by
5 cases

The opinion

Holmes, J.,

dissenting. I dissent from the judgment of the majority in this disciplinary matter in that it is my honest conviction that the violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility perpetrated by the respondent are of a grave nature involving moral turpitude. They not only involved the falsification of public reporting to the judiciary, but involved both fraud upon that judicial system and the public being served by such system. Even more grievous, in my opinion, is this respondent’s most deplorable utilization of his cloak of professionalism to ply his trade upon these couples eagerly anticipating the adoption of children, and charging exorbitant commercial-type fees to accomplish their honest parental desires.

I would strongly recommend permanent disbarment.

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.