Opinion

Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Heard

16 Ohio St. 3d 18
16 Ohio B. 369
475 N.E.2d 784
1985 Ohio LEXIS 289

Court: Ohio Supreme Court
Filed: Mar 27, 1985
Status: Published
Author: Brown
On the bench: Brown, Celebrezze, Douglas, Holmes, Locher, Sweeney, Wright
Cited by: 2 cases
Authority: More cited than 15.1%

The opinion

Clifford F. Brown, J.,

dissenting.

In my view the sanction of public reprimand is sufficient in this case when the nature of the professional misconduct and the respondent’s socio-economic circumstances are thoroughly studied. Furthermore, a public reprimand would be within the spirit, if not the letter of the law, announced by the United States Supreme Court in N.A.A.C.P. v. Button (1963) 371 U.S. 415 , and Brotherhood of RR. Trainmen v. Virginia (1964), 377 U.S. 1 , where no sanction is imposed for certain categories of referrals of cases and legal matters by organizations to lawyers.

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.